<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">CMA CGM, Maersk, MSC and Cosco are among mainliners charging add-ons on overweight containers.</div>

CMA CGM, Maersk, MSC and Cosco are among mainliners charging add-ons on overweight containers.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Indian cargo owners are facing a new wave of surcharges from major carriers on laden containers exceeding the standard weight threshold as westbound capacity suffers due to persistent schedule disruptions. CMA CGM, Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) and Cosco Shipping are among mainliners charging add-ons on overweight containers, according to industry updates. Indian export trades hit by the surcharge wave include shipments to the US, the Mediterranean, Africa and South America. Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have confirmed that Maersk recently began levying a fee of $200 per TEU for shipments to the US weighing over 22 metric tons. Maersk now operates an enhanced “MECL” service on the India-US East Coast trade, with its space out of West India overbooked in recent weeks amid sailing cutbacks on competing networks. Similarly, CMA CGM from July 13 will implement an overweight surcharge of $600 per TEU for dry shipments over 18 metric tons moving to the east coast of South America, complementing a $150-per-TEU fee it has already lined up for 27-ton-plus loads from West India to Mombasa (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) beginning July 1. Forwarder sources noted that the lead carriers are trying to restrict heavy cargo loadings, especially stones, tiles and metal products, and instead target lightweight cargo to maximize capacity utilization through better vessel stowage planning. “Fewer 40-foot boxes in the market have also contributed to the overweight problem,” a sales executive at a European liner who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “Our average container weight per TEU has been in the region of 19 metric tons to 19.5 mt, as against the 14 mt limit, on many recent sailings.” A second forwarder said surcharges on heavier loads are now across the board, with the scale varying from carrier to carrier. “The carriers who are not charging [overweight fees] mostly do not accept manual cargo bookings,” the forwarder said. Shipper sources echoed that concern, noting that carriers typically try to push through additional surcharges as the industry heads into the traditional peak season. “We should expect more [surcharge] hits in the coming days,” a Mumbai-based yarn exporter said. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com.</a></div>

Indian cargo owners are facing a new wave of surcharges from major carriers on laden containers exceeding the standard weight threshold as westbound capacity suffers due to persistent schedule disruptions. CMA CGM, Maersk, Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) and Cosco Shipping are among mainliners charging add-ons on overweight containers, according to industry updates. Indian export trades hit by the surcharge wave include shipments to the US, the Mediterranean, Africa and South America. Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have confirmed that Maersk recently began levying a fee of $200 per TEU for shipments to the US weighing over 22 metric tons. Maersk now operates an enhanced “MECL” service on the India-US East Coast trade, with its space out of West India overbooked in recent weeks amid sailing cutbacks on competing networks. Similarly, CMA CGM from July 13 will implement an overweight surcharge of $600 per TEU for dry shipments over 18 metric tons moving to the east coast of South America, complementing a $150-per-TEU fee it has already lined up for 27-ton-plus loads from West India to Mombasa (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania) beginning July 1. Forwarder sources noted that the lead carriers are trying to restrict heavy cargo loadings, especially stones, tiles and metal products, and instead target lightweight cargo to maximize capacity utilization through better vessel stowage planning. “Fewer 40-foot boxes in the market have also contributed to the overweight problem,” a sales executive at a European liner who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “Our average container weight per TEU has been in the region of 19 metric tons to 19.5 mt, as against the 14 mt limit, on many recent sailings.” A second forwarder said surcharges on heavier loads are now across the board, with the scale varying from carrier to carrier. “The carriers who are not charging [overweight fees] mostly do not accept manual cargo bookings,” the forwarder said. Shipper sources echoed that concern, noting that carriers typically try to push through additional surcharges as the industry heads into the traditional peak season. “We should expect more [surcharge] hits in the coming days,” a Mumbai-based yarn exporter said. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com.

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Maritime

Indian exporters face overweight box surcharges as carriers push scalability

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Global vehicle carriers are set to feel the sting of a growing Chinese-operated ro/ro fleet amid a fight for international car cargoes.</div>

Global vehicle carriers are set to feel the sting of a growing Chinese-operated ro/ro fleet amid a fight for international car cargoes.

<div class="phx-topic">Chinese vehicle carrier operators are set to upend the roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) cargo market, especially for eastbound backhaul vehicle, breakbulk and project cargo to China and Asia, senior maritime executives say. Speaking to the Journal of Commerce, the executives pointed out that carriers such as Cosco Shipping Specialized Carriers, SAIC Anji Logistics and BYD Auto are steadily increasing the number of pure car and truck carriers (PCTCs) in their fleets as Chinese vehicle exports continue to soar after hitting a high of 6 million units last year. Exports have grown a further 6% so far this year.  Stian Omli, co-founder and senior vice president of the shipping arm of Norwegian market intelligence company Esgian, said China’s eight major companies currently control 55 ships with a total capacity of 333,190 car equivalent units (CEUs). “This is equivalent to between 12% and 15% of the global deep-sea fleet,” Omli said. Data from Norwegian shipbroking house Hesnes Shipping, which has a strategic partnership with Esgian, showed a further 169 car carriers larger than 3,000 CEUs would be delivered from the second half of this year to 2028, the majority controlled by Chinese operators. Omli said the vessels would either be newbuild ships ordered by firms such as Cosco Shipping or chartered to the logistics affiliates of Chinese manufacturers such as BYD Auto or Geely Jisu from tonnage providers such as Singapore’s Eastern Pacific Shipping. The vessels include the BYD’s series of 9,200-CEU vessels, the largest in the world, which are being delivered beginning this year; the first, BYD Shenzhen, began its maiden voyage in April. <h3>Challenges of different operating models </h3>While these vessels are overshadowed by the almost 130 PCTCs operated by the world’s largest car carrier company, Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen, Chinese operators serve just a handful of Chinese vehicle makers calling at a small number of ports. Consequently, port dwell and voyage times are lower and vessel utilization is improved, Omli said. As a result, Chinese operators can make more round-trip voyages in a year compared with carriers such as Wallenius, so annualized transport volumes per ship are higher. Wallenius CEO Lasse Kristoffersen said the average ro/ro ship makes just over three round-trip voyages a year due to changing operational conditions, including more port calls and schedule disruption caused by vessel diversions around southern Africa. Senior maritime executives said the Chinese vessels are largely dedicated to transporting Chinese-manufactured vehicles to export markets such as Europe and South America, but because the operators are recent entrants to the market, they don’t yet have the customer network to generate return cargo. Cutting freight rates is one likely way they will generate those cargo volumes, the executives added. “The PCTC market is transforming. Traditional carriers such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners are now in competition with new Chinese players,” Paris Venetos, business development director at Venetos Maritime, told the Journal of Commerce. The Piraeus, Greece-based company is actively involved in vehicle shipments from China to the Mediterranean, Europe and the Middle East, especially new electric vehicle entrants into the region. “But what I think will generate even bigger stress is the scramble for return cargo to China from Europe and elsewhere,” Ventos said. “Traditional PCTC operators have had this nice market. But now, Chinese carriers will need return cargo from northern Europe or the Mediterranean to China or the US to Europe or Asia. Consequently, competition will become increasingly harsh.” He indicated there could be a rate war as Chinese carriers undercut traditional operators to secure backhaul freight. “Return cargo will become the new battleground for brutal fights to the benefit of the cargo owners,” Venetos said. Esgian’s Omli agreed that dumping rates was one way to secure return freight. “But incumbent carriers like Wilhelmsen have a much better relationship with European and US cargo owners and have a terminals and logistics organization to support it,” he said. “It will take time for Chinese operators to build this up.” Omli added that the established operators also have an “upper hand” when it comes to the shipment of high and heavy machines and industrial equipment, used cars, breakbulk and project cargo, which typically comprise return cargo. <h3>Overseas expansion of Chinese auto brands </h3>Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners did not respond to requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce on the challenges posed by Chinese ro/ro operators. But carriers such as Wilhelmsen and “K” Line are facing a widening imbalance with fronthaul volumes from Asia outpacing backhaul cargo from Europe and the US over the last six years. The imbalance was 4.6 million vehicles in 2019, but that surged 132% to 10.7 million vehicles last year as European and US manufacturers lost market share in Asia while Chinese, South Korean and Japanese vehicle makers gained market share in Europe and the US, according to motor industry association figures. Advisory firm AlixPartners forecast that trend would accelerate in the next five years, with local Chinese auto brands gaining 76% of China’s domestic market by 2030 at the expense of foreign makers. Lackluster sales of 3% in China this year will spur further overseas expansion. Chinese automakers are forecast to double their European market share to 10% by 2030, according to the 2025 AlixPartners Global Automotive Outlook published on June 19. “I’d say that the competitive supply and demand pressures for car carrier operators are likely to increase, and we’ll see a more diversified operator market with newcomers adding capacity and boosting their relative competitive position,” Omli said. “But there are many uncertainties, including the reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal, with the shortest transit route to Europe and the Mediterranean immediately adding the equivalent of more than 35 ships in extra capacity.” Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Chinese vehicle carrier operators are set to upend the roll-on/roll-off (ro/ro) cargo market, especially for eastbound backhaul vehicle, breakbulk and project cargo to China and Asia, senior maritime executives say. Speaking to the Journal of Commerce, the executives pointed out that carriers such as Cosco Shipping Specialized Carriers, SAIC Anji Logistics and BYD Auto are steadily increasing the number of pure car and truck carriers (PCTCs) in their fleets as Chinese vehicle exports continue to soar after hitting a high of 6 million units last year. Exports have grown a further 6% so far this year.  Stian Omli, co-founder and senior vice president of the shipping arm of Norwegian market intelligence company Esgian, said China’s eight major companies currently control 55 ships with a total capacity of 333,190 car equivalent units (CEUs). “This is equivalent to between 12% and 15% of the global deep-sea fleet,” Omli said. Data from Norwegian shipbroking house Hesnes Shipping, which has a strategic partnership with Esgian, showed a further 169 car carriers larger than 3,000 CEUs would be delivered from the second half of this year to 2028, the majority controlled by Chinese operators. Omli said the vessels would either be newbuild ships ordered by firms such as Cosco Shipping or chartered to the logistics affiliates of Chinese manufacturers such as BYD Auto or Geely Jisu from tonnage providers such as Singapore’s Eastern Pacific Shipping. The vessels include the BYD’s series of 9,200-CEU vessels, the largest in the world, which are being delivered beginning this year; the first, BYD Shenzhen, began its maiden voyage in April. Challenges of different operating models While these vessels are overshadowed by the almost 130 PCTCs operated by the world’s largest car carrier company, Norway’s Wallenius Wilhelmsen, Chinese operators serve just a handful of Chinese vehicle makers calling at a small number of ports. Consequently, port dwell and voyage times are lower and vessel utilization is improved, Omli said. As a result, Chinese operators can make more round-trip voyages in a year compared with carriers such as Wallenius, so annualized transport volumes per ship are higher. Wallenius CEO Lasse Kristoffersen said the average ro/ro ship makes just over three round-trip voyages a year due to changing operational conditions, including more port calls and schedule disruption caused by vessel diversions around southern Africa. Senior maritime executives said the Chinese vessels are largely dedicated to transporting Chinese-manufactured vehicles to export markets such as Europe and South America, but because the operators are recent entrants to the market, they don’t yet have the customer network to generate return cargo. Cutting freight rates is one likely way they will generate those cargo volumes, the executives added. “The PCTC market is transforming. Traditional carriers such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners are now in competition with new Chinese players,” Paris Venetos, business development director at Venetos Maritime, told the Journal of Commerce. The Piraeus, Greece-based company is actively involved in vehicle shipments from China to the Mediterranean, Europe and the Middle East, especially new electric vehicle entrants into the region. “But what I think will generate even bigger stress is the scramble for return cargo to China from Europe and elsewhere,” Ventos said. “Traditional PCTC operators have had this nice market. But now, Chinese carriers will need return cargo from northern Europe or the Mediterranean to China or the US to Europe or Asia. Consequently, competition will become increasingly harsh.” He indicated there could be a rate war as Chinese carriers undercut traditional operators to secure backhaul freight. “Return cargo will become the new battleground for brutal fights to the benefit of the cargo owners,” Venetos said. Esgian’s Omli agreed that dumping rates was one way to secure return freight. “But incumbent carriers like Wilhelmsen have a much better relationship with European and US cargo owners and have a terminals and logistics organization to support it,” he said. “It will take time for Chinese operators to build this up.” Omli added that the established operators also have an “upper hand” when it comes to the shipment of high and heavy machines and industrial equipment, used cars, breakbulk and project cargo, which typically comprise return cargo. Overseas expansion of Chinese auto brands Wallenius Wilhelmsen and Höegh Autoliners did not respond to requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce on the challenges posed by Chinese ro/ro operators. But carriers such as Wilhelmsen and “K” Line are facing a widening imbalance with fronthaul volumes from Asia outpacing backhaul cargo from Europe and the US over the last six years. The imbalance was 4.6 million vehicles in 2019, but that surged 132% to 10.7 million vehicles last year as European and US manufacturers lost market share in Asia while Chinese, South Korean and Japanese vehicle makers gained market share in Europe and the US, according to motor industry association figures. Advisory firm AlixPartners forecast that trend would accelerate in the next five years, with local Chinese auto brands gaining 76% of China’s domestic market by 2030 at the expense of foreign makers. Lackluster sales of 3% in China this year will spur further overseas expansion. Chinese automakers are forecast to double their European market share to 10% by 2030, according to the 2025 AlixPartners Global Automotive Outlook published on June 19. “I’d say that the competitive supply and demand pressures for car carrier operators are likely to increase, and we’ll see a more diversified operator market with newcomers adding capacity and boosting their relative competitive position,” Omli said. “But there are many uncertainties, including the reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal, with the shortest transit route to Europe and the Mediterranean immediately adding the equivalent of more than 35 ships in extra capacity.” Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Heavy-haul transport

Rate dumping fears emerge as Chinese ro/ro operators eye European expansion

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The fees come as dwell times for refrigerated containers in Houston exceed a week and reefer volumes topped 10,000 TEUs for the first time in three years.</div>

The fees come as dwell times for refrigerated containers in Houston exceed a week and reefer volumes topped 10,000 TEUs for the first time in three years.

<div class="phx-topic">Port Houston will implement new fees next month to force the movement of long-dwelling refrigerated import containers at the port. That comes as dwell times for reefer containers in Houston — a long-running problem — exceed a week and reefer volumes topped 10,000 TEUs for the first time in three years. “We are implementing these fees to maintain current operations, encourage the flow of cargo, and protect and add capacity ahead of forecasted demand,” Chief Port Operations Officer Ryan Mariacher told the Journal of Commerce. The new fees, which begin July 1 and kick in after one week of free time for most cargo, are $51.60 per day per container for one to three days, $77.40 per day for four to seven days, $103.20 per day for eight to 13 days, and $154.80 per day for 14 or more gate days. The new fees will override the existing sustained import dwell fee, which is $45 per day after one week. Mariacher acknowledged that reefer equipment at Houston is “dwelling excessively ... more than seven days.” The number of reefer containers being moved through Houston has risen every month between February and May, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, with the boxes containing a variety of cargo including frozen chicken paws, shrimp, prawns, meat, plantains and pineapples. In May, the most recent data available, total reefer throughput was 10,747 TEUs — exceeding 10,000 TEUs for the first time since May 2022, according to PIERS. Reefer volume in May was up 40% over the same month a year earlier. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Port Houston will implement new fees next month to force the movement of long-dwelling refrigerated import containers at the port. That comes as dwell times for reefer containers in Houston — a long-running problem — exceed a week and reefer volumes topped 10,000 TEUs for the first time in three years. “We are implementing these fees to maintain current operations, encourage the flow of cargo, and protect and add capacity ahead of forecasted demand,” Chief Port Operations Officer Ryan Mariacher told the Journal of Commerce. The new fees, which begin July 1 and kick in after one week of free time for most cargo, are $51.60 per day per container for one to three days, $77.40 per day for four to seven days, $103.20 per day for eight to 13 days, and $154.80 per day for 14 or more gate days. The new fees will override the existing sustained import dwell fee, which is $45 per day after one week. Mariacher acknowledged that reefer equipment at Houston is “dwelling excessively ... more than seven days.” The number of reefer containers being moved through Houston has risen every month between February and May, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, with the boxes containing a variety of cargo including frozen chicken paws, shrimp, prawns, meat, plantains and pineapples. In May, the most recent data available, total reefer throughput was 10,747 TEUs — exceeding 10,000 TEUs for the first time since May 2022, according to PIERS. Reefer volume in May was up 40% over the same month a year earlier. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

North American ports

Port Houston implementing reefer dwell fees to encourage container flow

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The railroad said the disruptions were the result of the switchover to a new operating system in early May, with the technology integration intended to unify old KCS systems into the CP network.</div>

The railroad said the disruptions were the result of the switchover to a new operating system in early May, with the technology integration intended to unify old KCS systems into the CP network.

<div class="phx-topic">Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) has acknowledged to US regulators that its customers have experienced poor service from the railroad since early May and vowed to fix the core issue — a messy transition from legacy Kansas City Southern (KCS) computer systems to CP networks. <a href="https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1750688210397/309692.pdf">A letter from CPKC</a> to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), dated June 20, outlined how the railroad will restore service to normal levels within the next month. The disruptions have centered not on the trains themselves but rather on the first and last miles of journeys, with the problems linked to terminals and switch yards. “CPKC’s level of service performance on the legacy KCS network since May 3, 2025 … does not measure up to CPKC’s standards for the quality of service it provides customers or the efficient operation of its network,” the railroad wrote to the STB. “CPKC also wishes to reassure the board that there is no broader underlying service problem.” CPKC said the disruptions were the result of the switchover to a new operating system in early May. The technology integration was intended to unify old KCS systems into the CP network. But CPKC wrote that the rollout encountered critical failures that disrupted car tracking, customer billing and switching operations. The ripple effects were significant, forcing crews to manually reconstruct data. Congestion soon mounted across the former KCS network, and some of the railroad’s customers were caught unprepared. <h3>Impact on intermodal and manifest trains </h3>In the initial weeks of the disruption, truck drivers were <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cpkc-grapples-with-complaints-over-us-canada-terminal-operations-6009914">spending hours waiting in lines</a> at terminals as crews had to be stationed at the gate to write receipts by hand. One CPKC customer had containers stuck inside the Wylie terminal in Texas for 10 days, according to data from GPS devices on the boxes. Two high-volume intermodal customers told the Journal of Commerce they pulled freight off the CPKC network in response. But Schneider National, CPKC’s top US partner, said the disruption was a minor blip. While CPKC’s letter to the STB focused on non-containerized freight, manifest and intermodal trains can impact one another in Laredo and Wylie, Texas, because they often share the same human resources, equipment and infrastructure. CPKC said the on-time performance of manifest trains, which hold a mixture of cargo, fell to 57.3% in a rolling four-week average ending June 13, dropping each week since the May 3 transition. Prior to May, on-time performance was regularly 75% to 85%. The situation was serious enough that CPKC created a “war room” in early May to troubleshoot issues. CPKC also flew in top executives, including COO Mark Redd, from Calgary to locations in Texas and the Gulf Coast to organize remedial efforts. “CPKC soon established cross-functional ‘SWAT-like’ support teams [comprised of experts from Operations, IT, and Network Support, and Marketing &amp; Sales, and including senior executives] to work through the issues arising from the IT transition,” CPKC wrote in the STB letter. “CPKC understands that some customer interactions with CPKC customer service personnel during the period may have been frustrating as a result of the issues with data visibility.” CPKC said it will continue to file weekly supplemental reports to update US regulators on the status of recovery efforts. “This report, along with the weekly cadence of updates we anticipate filing with the board as noted below, will provide those stakeholders with up-to-date data reflecting progress towards a return to normal service,” the railroad wrote. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) has acknowledged to US regulators that its customers have experienced poor service from the railroad since early May and vowed to fix the core issue — a messy transition from legacy Kansas City Southern (KCS) computer systems to CP networks. A letter from CPKC to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), dated June 20, outlined how the railroad will restore service to normal levels within the next month. The disruptions have centered not on the trains themselves but rather on the first and last miles of journeys, with the problems linked to terminals and switch yards. “CPKC’s level of service performance on the legacy KCS network since May 3, 2025 … does not measure up to CPKC’s standards for the quality of service it provides customers or the efficient operation of its network,” the railroad wrote to the STB. “CPKC also wishes to reassure the board that there is no broader underlying service problem.” CPKC said the disruptions were the result of the switchover to a new operating system in early May. The technology integration was intended to unify old KCS systems into the CP network. But CPKC wrote that the rollout encountered critical failures that disrupted car tracking, customer billing and switching operations. The ripple effects were significant, forcing crews to manually reconstruct data. Congestion soon mounted across the former KCS network, and some of the railroad’s customers were caught unprepared. Impact on intermodal and manifest trains In the initial weeks of the disruption, truck drivers were spending hours waiting in lines at terminals as crews had to be stationed at the gate to write receipts by hand. One CPKC customer had containers stuck inside the Wylie terminal in Texas for 10 days, according to data from GPS devices on the boxes. Two high-volume intermodal customers told the Journal of Commerce they pulled freight off the CPKC network in response. But Schneider National, CPKC’s top US partner, said the disruption was a minor blip. While CPKC’s letter to the STB focused on non-containerized freight, manifest and intermodal trains can impact one another in Laredo and Wylie, Texas, because they often share the same human resources, equipment and infrastructure. CPKC said the on-time performance of manifest trains, which hold a mixture of cargo, fell to 57.3% in a rolling four-week average ending June 13, dropping each week since the May 3 transition. Prior to May, on-time performance was regularly 75% to 85%. The situation was serious enough that CPKC created a “war room” in early May to troubleshoot issues. CPKC also flew in top executives, including COO Mark Redd, from Calgary to locations in Texas and the Gulf Coast to organize remedial efforts. “CPKC soon established cross-functional ‘SWAT-like’ support teams [comprised of experts from Operations, IT, and Network Support, and Marketing & Sales, and including senior executives] to work through the issues arising from the IT transition,” CPKC wrote in the STB letter. “CPKC understands that some customer interactions with CPKC customer service personnel during the period may have been frustrating as a result of the issues with data visibility.” CPKC said it will continue to file weekly supplemental reports to update US regulators on the status of recovery efforts. “This report, along with the weekly cadence of updates we anticipate filing with the board as noted below, will provide those stakeholders with up-to-date data reflecting progress towards a return to normal service,” the railroad wrote. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

CPKC acknowledges service woes to US regulators, vows remediation

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Internal and external forces in the first half of 2025 mitigated container vessel overcapacity, but steep challenges lie ahead, writes Journal of Commerce Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi.</div>

Internal and external forces in the first half of 2025 mitigated container vessel overcapacity, but steep challenges lie ahead, writes Journal of Commerce Executive Editor Mark Szakonyi.

<div class="phx-topic">External forces and a modicum of industry discipline mitigated yawning overcapacity in container shipping in the first half of 2025. But the sharpest pressures on ocean carriers’ capacity control, and resulting pricing, in the coming year are only intensifying — as reflected by the plunge in container spot rates on the trans-Pacific. The signs and rewards of capacity discipline in the first six months were modest. Container lines concluded annual trans-Pacific service contracts at levels 10% to 20% higher than last year, moving closer to $2,000 per FEU to the US West Coast for midsize importers, executives at three container lines told the Journal of Commence on the condition of anonymity. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6030001_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Those gains are less impressive when carriers’ operating costs have risen in the mid-single digits in the same period, largely due to higher chartering rates and terminal handling charges, but still speak to carriers’ increasing control of the market. Service contract rate levels in the past have crumbled in the face of a second-half plunge in spot rates, with importers successfully demanding pricing relief on minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) agreed to earlier in the year. There is no guarantee carriers would show the same resolve if a spot rate plunge followed the early and already waning peak season. But the fact that carriers mostly kept contracted importers to their MQC when spot rates began spiking in early May bodes well for their resolve. “We won’t be revising contracts,” an executive at a major Europe-based container line said he told major customers, adding that the biggest shipper customers finally realize that sharp enough rate declines will spur major capacity withdrawals, jeopardizing their restocking plans. The lessons of the danger of not pulling capacity fast enough when demand plunges, such as in 2008–09 when rates fell on a pullback of US imports due to the global financial crisis, still resonates. When China bookings surged in early May, carriers were able to add about 600,000 TEUs of capacity in the trans-Pacific within approximately a month, equating to up to 15% more weekly capacity than normal deployment levels, said Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics. That Mediterranean Shipping Co. is no longer in an alliance gave it a free hand to restore capacity faster, and a modest peak season in Asia-Europe allowed the deployment of extra loaders by the world’s largest carrier (as measured by tonnage) and its rivals. The Gemini Cooperation of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd substituted smaller vessels for larger ships when demand plunged, and then reversed course when bookings rebounded. Thus, Gemini didn’t need to blank capacity by skipping port calls, although some Asia outbound cargo initially shipped later than scheduled when demand outpaced what the smaller vessels could handle. That allowed Gemini to maintain its 90% reliability, keeping “our services going, while others have had to take capacity out by blanking,” Charles van der Steene, Maersk’s president of North America, told the Journal of Commerce in late May. But intra-Asia carriers piling into the trans-Pacific to take advantage of rising container spot rates, coupled with signs of a weaker-than-expected surge tied to the reprieve in higher US tariffs, began pulling down spot rates in early June. Carriers’ greater control of capacity “is a good thing, because we need stable, profitable ocean carriers to have a healthy industry,” Aldwell said in a June 16 interview at K+N’s headquarters in Schindellegi, Switzerland. “The last thing we need is another Hanjin [Shipping] crisis, because we’ve got long sustained losses in an industry which is so vital to global trade,” he added, referring to the 2016 collapse of the South Korea-based carrier. While carriers have exercised greater capacity control in recent years, Aldwell said the overcapacity challenges are still steep but added that it “doesn’t have to be a train wreck financially if it’s managed well for both customers and suppliers.” <h3>External factors tying up capacity </h3>MSC and CMA CGM’s major purchase of second-hand tonnage, sapping the amount of available chartered tonnage, has also served as a backstop to overcapacity, said Jeremy Masters, a shipping analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor. Approximately 2.3 million TEUs of capacity in the most-traded sector of the charter market — 7,000- to 9,000-TEU ships — has shrunk by 3.7 million TEUs in the last five years, according to analyst Alphaliner. “Of course, there will be a point of oversupply where even if all the assets were in the hands of the carriers, they would not be able to park enough ships in a concerted enough fashion quickly enough to keep supply below demand and thus keep rates up,” said Masters. “Recently, the carriers have been like a cat with seven lives,” he added, referring to how looming overcapacity has yet to bite. External factors such as port congestion are also tying up functional capacity. Northern European ports have been congested for months, while Asian ports such as Shanghai and Singapore have also been heavily affected. Major container lines still view Suez Canal transits as too risky even after President Donald Trump’s early May assertion that the Houthi rebels would stop attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The US missile attacks on Iran on Saturday demolished that fragile peace. The real test for container capacity control, according to the Europe-based shipping executive, will be after Golden Week, the week-long holiday in early October in which Chinese factories slow or halt production. US retailers’ confidence may falter by then, and the signals pointing to future consumption are worsening. In May, US retail sales fell, residential housing construction reached a five-year low and employment shrank, while airline travel fell in April and May. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

External forces and a modicum of industry discipline mitigated yawning overcapacity in container shipping in the first half of 2025. But the sharpest pressures on ocean carriers’ capacity control, and resulting pricing, in the coming year are only intensifying — as reflected by the plunge in container spot rates on the trans-Pacific. The signs and rewards of capacity discipline in the first six months were modest. Container lines concluded annual trans-Pacific service contracts at levels 10% to 20% higher than last year, moving closer to $2,000 per FEU to the US West Coast for midsize importers, executives at three container lines told the Journal of Commence on the condition of anonymity. Those gains are less impressive when carriers’ operating costs have risen in the mid-single digits in the same period, largely due to higher chartering rates and terminal handling charges, but still speak to carriers’ increasing control of the market. Service contract rate levels in the past have crumbled in the face of a second-half plunge in spot rates, with importers successfully demanding pricing relief on minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) agreed to earlier in the year. There is no guarantee carriers would show the same resolve if a spot rate plunge followed the early and already waning peak season. But the fact that carriers mostly kept contracted importers to their MQC when spot rates began spiking in early May bodes well for their resolve. “We won’t be revising contracts,” an executive at a major Europe-based container line said he told major customers, adding that the biggest shipper customers finally realize that sharp enough rate declines will spur major capacity withdrawals, jeopardizing their restocking plans. The lessons of the danger of not pulling capacity fast enough when demand plunges, such as in 2008–09 when rates fell on a pullback of US imports due to the global financial crisis, still resonates. When China bookings surged in early May, carriers were able to add about 600,000 TEUs of capacity in the trans-Pacific within approximately a month, equating to up to 15% more weekly capacity than normal deployment levels, said Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics. That Mediterranean Shipping Co. is no longer in an alliance gave it a free hand to restore capacity faster, and a modest peak season in Asia-Europe allowed the deployment of extra loaders by the world’s largest carrier (as measured by tonnage) and its rivals. The Gemini Cooperation of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd substituted smaller vessels for larger ships when demand plunged, and then reversed course when bookings rebounded. Thus, Gemini didn’t need to blank capacity by skipping port calls, although some Asia outbound cargo initially shipped later than scheduled when demand outpaced what the smaller vessels could handle. That allowed Gemini to maintain its 90% reliability, keeping “our services going, while others have had to take capacity out by blanking,” Charles van der Steene, Maersk’s president of North America, told the Journal of Commerce in late May. But intra-Asia carriers piling into the trans-Pacific to take advantage of rising container spot rates, coupled with signs of a weaker-than-expected surge tied to the reprieve in higher US tariffs, began pulling down spot rates in early June. Carriers’ greater control of capacity “is a good thing, because we need stable, profitable ocean carriers to have a healthy industry,” Aldwell said in a June 16 interview at K+N’s headquarters in Schindellegi, Switzerland. “The last thing we need is another Hanjin [Shipping] crisis, because we’ve got long sustained losses in an industry which is so vital to global trade,” he added, referring to the 2016 collapse of the South Korea-based carrier. While carriers have exercised greater capacity control in recent years, Aldwell said the overcapacity challenges are still steep but added that it “doesn’t have to be a train wreck financially if it’s managed well for both customers and suppliers.” External factors tying up capacity MSC and CMA CGM’s major purchase of second-hand tonnage, sapping the amount of available chartered tonnage, has also served as a backstop to overcapacity, said Jeremy Masters, a shipping analyst and Journal of Commerce contributor. Approximately 2.3 million TEUs of capacity in the most-traded sector of the charter market — 7,000- to 9,000-TEU ships — has shrunk by 3.7 million TEUs in the last five years, according to analyst Alphaliner. “Of course, there will be a point of oversupply where even if all the assets were in the hands of the carriers, they would not be able to park enough ships in a concerted enough fashion quickly enough to keep supply below demand and thus keep rates up,” said Masters. “Recently, the carriers have been like a cat with seven lives,” he added, referring to how looming overcapacity has yet to bite. External factors such as port congestion are also tying up functional capacity. Northern European ports have been congested for months, while Asian ports such as Shanghai and Singapore have also been heavily affected. Major container lines still view Suez Canal transits as too risky even after President Donald Trump’s early May assertion that the Houthi rebels would stop attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The US missile attacks on Iran on Saturday demolished that fragile peace. The real test for container capacity control, according to the Europe-based shipping executive, will be after Golden Week, the week-long holiday in early October in which Chinese factories slow or halt production. US retailers’ confidence may falter by then, and the signals pointing to future consumption are worsening. In May, US retail sales fell, residential housing construction reached a five-year low and employment shrank, while airline travel fell in April and May. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

International ports

Ocean carriers flex tonnage control, but overcapacity is mounting

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Iran has yet to make good on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, but nervous carriers are preparing contingency plans as the region moves onto a war footing.</div>

Iran has yet to make good on its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz, but nervous carriers are preparing contingency plans as the region moves onto a war footing.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers are poised to adjust schedules and omit key Persian Gulf transshipment hubs should Tehran carry out its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping following the US bombing raids on Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday. A series of customer advisories were issued by carriers on Monday, emphasizing the safety of crew, vessels and cargo as the shipping companies closely monitor a rapidly deteriorating security situation. “We are actively evaluating potential risks and stand ready to adjust our operations should conditions change,” Hapag-Lloyd said in an advisory. “At present, our vessels continue to transit the Strait of Hormuz. The safety and well-being of our crews and ships remain our highest priority.” The US launched airstrikes on three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan early Sunday in a dramatic escalation of the war between Iran and Israel. Iran’s parliament voted on June 22 in support of closing the Strait of Hormuz, although the final decision will be made by the Supreme Leader in consultation with the Supreme National Security Council. As of Monday, the only entrance to the Persian Gulf remained open to shipping. Lars Jensen, CEO of consultant Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce analyst, said how and where Iran would retaliate against US interests in the region was being closely monitored. “But for commercial shipping, the question is not whether or not vessels are attacked — the question is whether or not the risk itself is sufficient to cause a change in vessel deployment to reduce traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,” Jensen wrote in a LinkedIn post. In a country risk report Monday, S&amp;P Global Maritime Intelligence noted that Iran’s leadership now almost certainly perceives a severe threat to its survival, whether direct or indirect, and that is likely to heavily influence decision making. “We expect Iran’s response to first remain focused on continued ballistic missile and [drone] attacks on Israel [and] being likely to attempt to impede transit through the Strait of Hormuz,” the report noted. Disrupting ship transits could include vessel seizures, GPS/AIS spoofing and the use of military boats to harass vessels, it added. CMA CGM said in its customer advisory that “the geopolitical context is evolving.” “At this stage, we confirm that shipping activities are proceeding as normal in the area, and that our operations and logistics chains remain unchanged,” the carrier stated. “We continue to ensure full service coverage across all routes and ports of call.” However, ocean visibility provider eeSea noted that CMA CGM’s CMA-LMX service has been renamed and rerouted. The Europe-Middle East service that has been operating in the Persian Gulf since September 2024 has dropped calls to Jebel Ali, Abu Dhabi and Jubail in the Gulf and has added an additional call to the Turkish port of Ambarli near Istanbul. The service is now advertised under the name CMA-LRX (Levant Red Sea Express) and will see a reduction of three slots and a total roundtrip time cut in half from 42 to 21 days. <h3>Hormuz closure would impact key transshipment hub </h3>Any closure of the Strait of Hormuz will be felt first in the energy markets. According to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, more than 17 million barrels of crude oil each day move through Hormuz, coming not just from Iran, but from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. That is more than 20% of daily global crude production. But container traffic would face significant disruption as well, with 4% of global volume passing through the strait in 2024, primarily destined for the United Arab Emirates’ transshipment hubs of Jebel Ali and Khalifa, and for the ports of Dammam in Saudi Arabia and Doha in Qatar. Jebel Ali, which handled 15.5 million TEUs in 2024, has become the region’s leading transshipment hub with feeder services connecting ports across the Persian Gulf, South Asia and East Africa. A blockade of Hormuz would see calls diverted to neighboring Indian, Omani and East African ports, where a surge in transshipment demand could lead to congestion and delays, a report from S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence noted. Multipurpose carrier AAL Shipping said in a statement Monday it was “deeply concerned” with the war between Israel and Iran and its impact on shipping in the region. “While our normal trade lane schedules currently remain unaffected, we are monitoring the situation and taking all necessary precautions to ensure the safety of our crew and cargo as we trade regional waters for our customers,” AAL said. But the carrier warned that there was also a rising cost element to the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. “We would highlight that such evolving threats can lead to increased insurance premiums and other security-related costs, affecting operational considerations for all parties,” it said. Meanwhile, at the other end of the war, Maersk announced it was cutting calls to the Israeli port of Haifa in the Mediterranean. “After carefully analyzing threat risk reports regarding the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran — particularly the potential risks of calling specific Israeli ports and their implications for the safety of our crews — Maersk has made the decision to temporarily suspend vessel calls at the Port of Haifa, Israel, and also suspend cargo acceptance for Haifa,” the carrier said in an advisory Friday. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com ">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Ocean carriers are poised to adjust schedules and omit key Persian Gulf transshipment hubs should Tehran carry out its threat to close the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping following the US bombing raids on Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday. A series of customer advisories were issued by carriers on Monday, emphasizing the safety of crew, vessels and cargo as the shipping companies closely monitor a rapidly deteriorating security situation. “We are actively evaluating potential risks and stand ready to adjust our operations should conditions change,” Hapag-Lloyd said in an advisory. “At present, our vessels continue to transit the Strait of Hormuz. The safety and well-being of our crews and ships remain our highest priority.” The US launched airstrikes on three of Iran’s nuclear sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan early Sunday in a dramatic escalation of the war between Iran and Israel. Iran’s parliament voted on June 22 in support of closing the Strait of Hormuz, although the final decision will be made by the Supreme Leader in consultation with the Supreme National Security Council. As of Monday, the only entrance to the Persian Gulf remained open to shipping. Lars Jensen, CEO of consultant Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce analyst, said how and where Iran would retaliate against US interests in the region was being closely monitored. “But for commercial shipping, the question is not whether or not vessels are attacked — the question is whether or not the risk itself is sufficient to cause a change in vessel deployment to reduce traffic through the Strait of Hormuz,” Jensen wrote in a LinkedIn post. In a country risk report Monday, S&P Global Maritime Intelligence noted that Iran’s leadership now almost certainly perceives a severe threat to its survival, whether direct or indirect, and that is likely to heavily influence decision making. “We expect Iran’s response to first remain focused on continued ballistic missile and [drone] attacks on Israel [and] being likely to attempt to impede transit through the Strait of Hormuz,” the report noted. Disrupting ship transits could include vessel seizures, GPS/AIS spoofing and the use of military boats to harass vessels, it added. CMA CGM said in its customer advisory that “the geopolitical context is evolving.” “At this stage, we confirm that shipping activities are proceeding as normal in the area, and that our operations and logistics chains remain unchanged,” the carrier stated. “We continue to ensure full service coverage across all routes and ports of call.” However, ocean visibility provider eeSea noted that CMA CGM’s CMA-LMX service has been renamed and rerouted. The Europe-Middle East service that has been operating in the Persian Gulf since September 2024 has dropped calls to Jebel Ali, Abu Dhabi and Jubail in the Gulf and has added an additional call to the Turkish port of Ambarli near Istanbul. The service is now advertised under the name CMA-LRX (Levant Red Sea Express) and will see a reduction of three slots and a total roundtrip time cut in half from 42 to 21 days. Hormuz closure would impact key transshipment hub Any closure of the Strait of Hormuz will be felt first in the energy markets. According to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, more than 17 million barrels of crude oil each day move through Hormuz, coming not just from Iran, but from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. That is more than 20% of daily global crude production. But container traffic would face significant disruption as well, with 4% of global volume passing through the strait in 2024, primarily destined for the United Arab Emirates’ transshipment hubs of Jebel Ali and Khalifa, and for the ports of Dammam in Saudi Arabia and Doha in Qatar. Jebel Ali, which handled 15.5 million TEUs in 2024, has become the region’s leading transshipment hub with feeder services connecting ports across the Persian Gulf, South Asia and East Africa. A blockade of Hormuz would see calls diverted to neighboring Indian, Omani and East African ports, where a surge in transshipment demand could lead to congestion and delays, a report from S&P Global Market Intelligence noted. Multipurpose carrier AAL Shipping said in a statement Monday it was “deeply concerned” with the war between Israel and Iran and its impact on shipping in the region. “While our normal trade lane schedules currently remain unaffected, we are monitoring the situation and taking all necessary precautions to ensure the safety of our crew and cargo as we trade regional waters for our customers,” AAL said. But the carrier warned that there was also a rising cost element to the deteriorating situation in the Middle East. “We would highlight that such evolving threats can lead to increased insurance premiums and other security-related costs, affecting operational considerations for all parties,” it said. Meanwhile, at the other end of the war, Maersk announced it was cutting calls to the Israeli port of Haifa in the Mediterranean. “After carefully analyzing threat risk reports regarding the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran — particularly the potential risks of calling specific Israeli ports and their implications for the safety of our crews — Maersk has made the decision to temporarily suspend vessel calls at the Port of Haifa, Israel, and also suspend cargo acceptance for Haifa,” the carrier said in an advisory Friday. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Carriers ‘stand ready’ to cut Persian Gulf calls as security threat escalates

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As agricultural exports enter their traditional peak season, it is prudent to be proactive now — while there is still an empty container supply extant in North America. </div>

As agricultural exports enter their traditional peak season, it is prudent to be proactive now — while there is still an empty container supply extant in North America.

<div class="phx-topic">“Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” is a folk song written by American singer-songwriter Pete Seeger. Legend has it that he wrote it while on an airplane to play at Oberlin College, one of the few locations willing to defy the McCarthy hiring blacklist imposed on him. Subsequently, the song became a mainstay of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War and has been covered by many artists and in many languages. The song utilizes the image of flowers and the cycle of life to depict the cyclical and destructive nature of war. And while I recognize that applying this metaphor to our industry’s cyclicality may be a step too far, I believe that the plaintive refrain, “Oh when will you/we ever learn; Oh, when will you/we ever learn?” certainly applies. In today’s transportation industry, there are very few of us that can remember the days of regulation when we struggled in an economy beset by stagflation. President Jimmy Carter then liberated our sector with deregulation. Because regulation — by design — was intended to ensure excess capacity, two decades of halcyon growth followed as this capacity was redeployed to productive applications. Along with globalization and outsourcing, logistics and supply chain management became industries in their own right, and intermodal was a key driver. However, about 25 years ago, the “free” capacity unleashed by deregulation had been consumed and growth needed to be supported by investment. Coincidentally, these changes took place against the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack. A bipartisan blue-ribbon commission was established, and three years later, they released their report. The findings were extensive. The government was not prepared and did not know how to respond. Problems with intelligence collection, analysis, sharing across agencies, and a lack of coordination among federal agencies exacerbated the challenges. In fact, the whole structure represented a maze of siloed and disaggregated responsibilities. When I read the report, I was struck by the potential for a future commission assembled to write many of the same findings about the transportation network in our country. I actually wrote a white paper in 2004 claiming that it would be unnecessary to convene an investigation of the inevitable supply chain meltdown because it was already written. All that was necessary was to take the 9/11 report and replace “national security” with “supply chain.” <h3>COVID-19 drove changes </h3>Of course, our industry did nothing to address these structural shortcomings and muddled on until COVID-19 struck. At that time, it seemed that our entire industry adopted the “4C” excuse — everything was the fault of COVID, China, Congestion and Chassis. Everyone was surprised that such a terrible fate could befall our industry. Even worse, our industry seemed to be represented by our least qualified spokespeople and most of the media had no idea of basic facts. Somehow, we all survived that mess. Many of the problems impacted the entire network. The maelstrom of detention and demurrage bills gave rise to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22). It increased the authority of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to promote the growth and development of US exports through an ocean transportation system that is competitive, efficient and economical. Beyond its mandate addressing complaints about detention and demurrage charges, OSRA-22 prohibits common ocean carriers, marine terminal operators or ocean transportation intermediaries from unreasonably refusing cargo space when available or resorting to other unfair or unjustly discriminatory methods. These protections were welcomed by the export community. However, we have to recognize that a complaint process after the fact may be insufficient to provide adequate protection if there is no effective remedy available. At times of high demand (and rates) for imports from Asia to North America, ocean carriers frequently evacuate all containers as soon as their import cargo is devanned. This moots the question of available space because there may be vessel space — but no empty containers.  As agricultural exports enter their traditional peak season, we believe that it is prudent to be proactive now, while there is still an empty container supply extant in North America. The Agriculture Transportation Coalition convenes June 16 for its annual meeting. I am sure Executive Director Peter Friedmann will have this high on the agenda; we do not want to be wondering where all the containers have gone. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>.</div>

“Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” is a folk song written by American singer-songwriter Pete Seeger. Legend has it that he wrote it while on an airplane to play at Oberlin College, one of the few locations willing to defy the McCarthy hiring blacklist imposed on him. Subsequently, the song became a mainstay of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War and has been covered by many artists and in many languages. The song utilizes the image of flowers and the cycle of life to depict the cyclical and destructive nature of war. And while I recognize that applying this metaphor to our industry’s cyclicality may be a step too far, I believe that the plaintive refrain, “Oh when will you/we ever learn; Oh, when will you/we ever learn?” certainly applies. In today’s transportation industry, there are very few of us that can remember the days of regulation when we struggled in an economy beset by stagflation. President Jimmy Carter then liberated our sector with deregulation. Because regulation — by design — was intended to ensure excess capacity, two decades of halcyon growth followed as this capacity was redeployed to productive applications. Along with globalization and outsourcing, logistics and supply chain management became industries in their own right, and intermodal was a key driver. However, about 25 years ago, the “free” capacity unleashed by deregulation had been consumed and growth needed to be supported by investment. Coincidentally, these changes took place against the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack. A bipartisan blue-ribbon commission was established, and three years later, they released their report. The findings were extensive. The government was not prepared and did not know how to respond. Problems with intelligence collection, analysis, sharing across agencies, and a lack of coordination among federal agencies exacerbated the challenges. In fact, the whole structure represented a maze of siloed and disaggregated responsibilities. When I read the report, I was struck by the potential for a future commission assembled to write many of the same findings about the transportation network in our country. I actually wrote a white paper in 2004 claiming that it would be unnecessary to convene an investigation of the inevitable supply chain meltdown because it was already written. All that was necessary was to take the 9/11 report and replace “national security” with “supply chain.” COVID-19 drove changes Of course, our industry did nothing to address these structural shortcomings and muddled on until COVID-19 struck. At that time, it seemed that our entire industry adopted the “4C” excuse — everything was the fault of COVID, China, Congestion and Chassis. Everyone was surprised that such a terrible fate could befall our industry. Even worse, our industry seemed to be represented by our least qualified spokespeople and most of the media had no idea of basic facts. Somehow, we all survived that mess. Many of the problems impacted the entire network. The maelstrom of detention and demurrage bills gave rise to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22). It increased the authority of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to promote the growth and development of US exports through an ocean transportation system that is competitive, efficient and economical. Beyond its mandate addressing complaints about detention and demurrage charges, OSRA-22 prohibits common ocean carriers, marine terminal operators or ocean transportation intermediaries from unreasonably refusing cargo space when available or resorting to other unfair or unjustly discriminatory methods. These protections were welcomed by the export community. However, we have to recognize that a complaint process after the fact may be insufficient to provide adequate protection if there is no effective remedy available. At times of high demand (and rates) for imports from Asia to North America, ocean carriers frequently evacuate all containers as soon as their import cargo is devanned. This moots the question of available space because there may be vessel space — but no empty containers.  As agricultural exports enter their traditional peak season, we believe that it is prudent to be proactive now, while there is still an empty container supply extant in North America. The Agriculture Transportation Coalition convenes June 16 for its annual meeting. I am sure Executive Director Peter Friedmann will have this high on the agenda; we do not want to be wondering where all the containers have gone. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Supply chain

Act now before we wonder where all the containers have gone

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Trump administration’s tariff policy is yet another milestone that has shaken the US economy over the past 60 years, writes Ted Prince. </div>

The Trump administration’s tariff policy is yet another milestone that has shaken the US economy over the past 60 years, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Since the announcement of reciprocal tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day” last month, we have been bombarded by conflicting predictions of the possible benefits and disasters that may befall our country, our economy and our industry. What I find interesting is that the history of the past 60 years seems to have been forgotten. While there are many important dates, I will focus on four. <h3>Yanqui go home! </h3>I would start in April 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Marines and 82nd Airborne to the Dominican Republic to quell a civil war that broke out after a military junta. While the intervention was intended to protect US nationals, mission creep led to the deployment of over 22,000 American troops. While the invasion successfully reinstalled a conservative government, it increased distrust of the US. At the same time, companies such as Hewlett Packard were rolling out a continuous pipeline of electronic innovations. Their intention was to near-shore manufacturing in Latin America; however, the prevalence of “Yanqui Go Home!” made them look elsewhere. Japan and then the “Four Tigers” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) became the factory sites instead. The Vietnam War had become the first containerized war, and plentiful equipment was available to load back to the US. While electronics required factories, much of the manufacturing was cottage industries. For example, importers of blue jeans were buying from hundreds of small vendors. Ocean carrier consolidators would send pickup trucks into the New Territories to pick up loose articles of clothing (some which no doubt had been made in China) for consolidation at their facilities adjacent to the Kwai Tsing container terminals. <h3>Voluntary restraint </h3>In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to “voluntary export restraint,” which limited exports of passenger cars to the US. However, at the same time, they implemented a strategy of “transplants,” whereby cars were assembled in the US. Some might consider this an example of “reshoring;” however, it is not that simple. Initially, the plants were built in Japan, then disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled. Most of the parts (CKD: cars knocked down) came from Japan, so actual US content — other than labor — was minimal. Over time, suppliers proliferated along Interstates 65 and 75 to support these plants. However, many of these were also Japanese transplants. Some were joint ventures with US partners, but many were just US subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturers. Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison described this phenomenon in their 1982 work, “The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.” They pointed out the irony that the Japanese were successfully investing in US industrial sectors that scarcely a decade ago were said to be declining, uncompetitive, and suffering from deindustrialization. <h3>The Plaza Accord </h3>The Plaza Accord in September 1985 effectively devalued the dollar against other major currencies. Initially, the US trade deficit worsened, as imports rose in price with a devalued dollar. However, the devaluation made US exports cheaper for its trading partners to purchase, which grew the market in goods and services — which are unaccounted for in the current administration’s calculation. <h3>China and the WTO </h3>Finally, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). What followed was a massive dislocation in trade as China built world-class factories and world-class ports to ship goods throughout the world. Some of those factories have since relocated to nations with cheaper labor. However, a whole ecosystem of suppliers has grown up that supports the manufacturing and assembly of sophisticated products. China’s development took over 30 years. It was no shortcut. It was also the result of extensive industrial policy similar to what Japan and the Four Tigers had done previously. Most importantly, these policies did not deviate for decades and supported a long-term strategy whereby investment could be made with confidence. Our current politics are such that it is impossible to invest in today’s doctrine because it may no longer be applicable by the time the factory opens in three to eight years. In the past 30 years, trade has increased dramatically as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). However, while most economists believe that this has been good for the economy, the general public’s outlook is less sanguine. In large part, this is because trade’s impacts can vary widely: localized changes in jobs (both gains and losses) and reduced prices of goods and services. Freight is inextricably linked to trade. It has transformed our industry. We will no doubt have a ringside seat to the policy that is evolving. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

Since the announcement of reciprocal tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day” last month, we have been bombarded by conflicting predictions of the possible benefits and disasters that may befall our country, our economy and our industry. What I find interesting is that the history of the past 60 years seems to have been forgotten. While there are many important dates, I will focus on four. Yanqui go home! I would start in April 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Marines and 82nd Airborne to the Dominican Republic to quell a civil war that broke out after a military junta. While the intervention was intended to protect US nationals, mission creep led to the deployment of over 22,000 American troops. While the invasion successfully reinstalled a conservative government, it increased distrust of the US. At the same time, companies such as Hewlett Packard were rolling out a continuous pipeline of electronic innovations. Their intention was to near-shore manufacturing in Latin America; however, the prevalence of “Yanqui Go Home!” made them look elsewhere. Japan and then the “Four Tigers” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) became the factory sites instead. The Vietnam War had become the first containerized war, and plentiful equipment was available to load back to the US. While electronics required factories, much of the manufacturing was cottage industries. For example, importers of blue jeans were buying from hundreds of small vendors. Ocean carrier consolidators would send pickup trucks into the New Territories to pick up loose articles of clothing (some which no doubt had been made in China) for consolidation at their facilities adjacent to the Kwai Tsing container terminals. Voluntary restraint In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to “voluntary export restraint,” which limited exports of passenger cars to the US. However, at the same time, they implemented a strategy of “transplants,” whereby cars were assembled in the US. Some might consider this an example of “reshoring;” however, it is not that simple. Initially, the plants were built in Japan, then disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled. Most of the parts (CKD: cars knocked down) came from Japan, so actual US content — other than labor — was minimal. Over time, suppliers proliferated along Interstates 65 and 75 to support these plants. However, many of these were also Japanese transplants. Some were joint ventures with US partners, but many were just US subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturers. Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison described this phenomenon in their 1982 work, “The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.” They pointed out the irony that the Japanese were successfully investing in US industrial sectors that scarcely a decade ago were said to be declining, uncompetitive, and suffering from deindustrialization. The Plaza Accord The Plaza Accord in September 1985 effectively devalued the dollar against other major currencies. Initially, the US trade deficit worsened, as imports rose in price with a devalued dollar. However, the devaluation made US exports cheaper for its trading partners to purchase, which grew the market in goods and services — which are unaccounted for in the current administration’s calculation. China and the WTO Finally, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). What followed was a massive dislocation in trade as China built world-class factories and world-class ports to ship goods throughout the world. Some of those factories have since relocated to nations with cheaper labor. However, a whole ecosystem of suppliers has grown up that supports the manufacturing and assembly of sophisticated products. China’s development took over 30 years. It was no shortcut. It was also the result of extensive industrial policy similar to what Japan and the Four Tigers had done previously. Most importantly, these policies did not deviate for decades and supported a long-term strategy whereby investment could be made with confidence. Our current politics are such that it is impossible to invest in today’s doctrine because it may no longer be applicable by the time the factory opens in three to eight years. In the past 30 years, trade has increased dramatically as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). However, while most economists believe that this has been good for the economy, the general public’s outlook is less sanguine. In large part, this is because trade’s impacts can vary widely: localized changes in jobs (both gains and losses) and reduced prices of goods and services. Freight is inextricably linked to trade. It has transformed our industry. We will no doubt have a ringside seat to the policy that is evolving. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

Year-over-year % change

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

US to Mediterranean container volume (PIERS)

PIERS US exports to Mediterranean (Monthly) (year-over-year-change) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A more than 30% one-week drop in rates from Asia to the US West Coast is showing that the import rush sparked by the temporary pause in higher US tariffs will apparently be short-lived.</div>

A more than 30% one-week drop in rates from Asia to the US West Coast is showing that the import rush sparked by the temporary pause in higher US tariffs will apparently be short-lived.

<div class="phx-topic">Spot rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific are in rapid retreat, a sign the import surge that came on the heels of the temporary pause in higher US tariffs won’t have the staying power many initially believed, market sources say. Rates to the West Coast were at $3,500 per FEU as of June 17, down 32% in just one week, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. East Coast rates of $6,500 were 11% lower on the week. Forwarders peg current rates from Asia to the West Coast in the low $3,000s per FEU, with East Coast rates in the low $6,000s per FEU. As recently as June 6, the West Coast rate was in the low $6,000s and the East Coast rate was in the low $7,000s, according to Platts. “It’s quite the turnaround,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. “What’s driving this? [Declining] demand primarily.” Bookings at Asian load ports have dropped, Khachatryan said, even as carriers have injected more capacity into the eastbound trans-Pacific recently to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pause-on-tariffs-prompts-us-retailers-to-upgrade-summer-import-forecast-6022230">take advantage of the demand</a> that resulted from the Trump administration in mid-May pausing its proposed 145% tariffs on China for 90 days. A separate tariff pause on other trading partners ends July 9. But the demand sparked by those moves appears fleeting. “I think everybody was expecting that big boom to last a lot longer,” a forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. “It might be over.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8c13a3e-9f5a-412f-8741-adbf5e1a7779"></dynamic-object></div>Just how “over” is uncertain. While some carriers may believe there will be another surge in demand when the Trump administration finally decides the fate of the tariffs on China and other countries in July and August, forwarders don’t see that happening. “I don’t expect it to increase again,” a second forwarder said. “This is all speculation. Anything could happen, but the trend doesn’t show for that.” <h3>Has peak season begun? </h3>Also in the mix is peak shipping season, which in recent years has begun as early as June and ran through October. But in the year of tariffs, nothing is showing to be typical. Some market participants say the recent demand surge could be considered the start of an early peak season that still has room to run. A carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce he does not believe rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific are inevitably headed lower still in the coming weeks.“Shippers are in a ‘wait and see’ mode on tariffs and seeking clarity on Trump’s declaration of deal with China bringing tariffs to 55%, meaning there might be another [demand] surge,” the executive said.Until then, prices are undoubtedly softening. “Vessel-specific rates to the East Coast from some China ports are a lot lower [than indexes] — $5,500,” Khachatryan said. “I saw $2,700 [to the West Coast] out there,” said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. Cook said an indicator of where rates in the trans-Pacific may be headed will come on July 1, when a number of carriers will apparently attempt to implement another general rate increase. “On July 1, they’ll try to do an increase,” he said. “They may try again in mid-month.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Spot rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific are in rapid retreat, a sign the import surge that came on the heels of the temporary pause in higher US tariffs won’t have the staying power many initially believed, market sources say. Rates to the West Coast were at $3,500 per FEU as of June 17, down 32% in just one week, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. East Coast rates of $6,500 were 11% lower on the week. Forwarders peg current rates from Asia to the West Coast in the low $3,000s per FEU, with East Coast rates in the low $6,000s per FEU. As recently as June 6, the West Coast rate was in the low $6,000s and the East Coast rate was in the low $7,000s, according to Platts. “It’s quite the turnaround,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. “What’s driving this? [Declining] demand primarily.” Bookings at Asian load ports have dropped, Khachatryan said, even as carriers have injected more capacity into the eastbound trans-Pacific recently to take advantage of the demand that resulted from the Trump administration in mid-May pausing its proposed 145% tariffs on China for 90 days. A separate tariff pause on other trading partners ends July 9. But the demand sparked by those moves appears fleeting. “I think everybody was expecting that big boom to last a lot longer,” a forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. “It might be over.” Just how “over” is uncertain. While some carriers may believe there will be another surge in demand when the Trump administration finally decides the fate of the tariffs on China and other countries in July and August, forwarders don’t see that happening. “I don’t expect it to increase again,” a second forwarder said. “This is all speculation. Anything could happen, but the trend doesn’t show for that.” Has peak season begun? Also in the mix is peak shipping season, which in recent years has begun as early as June and ran through October. But in the year of tariffs, nothing is showing to be typical. Some market participants say the recent demand surge could be considered the start of an early peak season that still has room to run. A carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce he does not believe rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific are inevitably headed lower still in the coming weeks. “Shippers are in a ‘wait and see’ mode on tariffs and seeking clarity on Trump’s declaration of deal with China bringing tariffs to 55%, meaning there might be another [demand] surge,” the executive said. Until then, prices are undoubtedly softening. “Vessel-specific rates to the East Coast from some China ports are a lot lower [than indexes] — $5,500,” Khachatryan said. “I saw $2,700 [to the West Coast] out there,” said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. Cook said an indicator of where rates in the trans-Pacific may be headed will come on July 1, when a number of carriers will apparently attempt to implement another general rate increase. “On July 1, they’ll try to do an increase,” he said. “They may try again in mid-month.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Port News

Trans-Pacific

Trans-Pacific spot rates falling as tariff-linked demand surge loses steam

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The inability to predict the next move on tariffs is unsettling for cargo owners and their service providers, the CEO of the Association for Supply Chain Management tells the Journal of Commerce. </div>

The inability to predict the next move on tariffs is unsettling for cargo owners and their service providers, the CEO of the Association for Supply Chain Management tells the Journal of Commerce.

<div class="phx-topic">BRUSSELS — The US tariff whiplash is forcing those who manage supply chains to shrink planning horizons, increase inventory carrying costs and put strategic investment on hold, according to the CEO of the Association for Supply Chain Management. While the Trump administration pursues its so-called “reciprocal trade agenda,” Abe Eshkenazi said the inability to predict the next tariff move was unsettling for cargo owners and their service providers. “A lot of the strategic investments and a lot of the capital investments have been put on hold,” Eshkenazi told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week at the CHAINge Europe supply chain conference. “It’s hard to convince a CEO to spend $2 billion on a new plant when he doesn’t know if you’re going to manufacture for local markets or for a global marketplace,” he added. “As a [beneficial cargo owner], this is going to be the life that you lead over the next few years.” Eshkenazi said planning horizons have shrunk because of the lack of visibility in ever-changing tariff-driven demand, especially on the trans-Pacific. He emphasized that the tariff disruption to global trade was not a supply and demand issue, which supply chains were well-suited to handle, but rather a pricing issue. “That is a big problem for us because it changes constantly,” he said. “How much is the tariff? When is it going to be applied? Is it consistent? We are accustomed to disruption, but more in the form of long-term issues, as opposed to something that’s on today, off tomorrow, or 20% now, then 50% or 100%.” A pause on higher tariffs on most of the US’ trading partners is in effect until July 9, while the pause on the 145% tariff on imports from China is due to expire Aug. 14. President Donald Trump wrote last week on his social media platform that a deal with Beijing will see US tariffs set at 55% for Chinese imports, up from 30%, while China’s tariffs on US goods remain at 10%. However, there has not yet been a formal deal signed between Beijing and Washington. <h3>Importers building inventory buffers </h3>Eshkenazi warned that cargo owners in the US were being forced to carry too much inventory as a risk management strategy, and that “can only last so long.” “You can’t continue to build up inventories or your CFO is going to have a conversation and ask why you are draining capital for stock just sitting there and nobody moving it,” he noted. Trade disruption caused by the US tariffs dominated discussions at the Brussels conference, with attendees expressing their frustration at managing cargo flows in such a fluid environment. “It has taken us almost three years to go through the additional inventory built up to cope with supply chain disruptions and we are now having to bring in buffer stocks again to try to manage the risk,” the supply chain director for a global shipper said. A US importer said if the intention of the Trump tariffs was to bring manufacturing back to the US, “no one would buy our products because they would be too expensive.” Other roundtable attendees highlighted the recent trans-Pacific rate environment where carriers were rolling out general rate increases every two weeks to take advantage of what had been heavy demand after tariffs on China were paused in May and importers rushed to get shipments on the water. But spot rates on the two main Asia-US trade lanes are now falling. The Asia-US West Coast rate this week of $3,500 per FEU is down 32% from the previous week, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Rates from Asia to the US East Coast fell 11% week over week to $6,500/FEU. <h3>Doubt, hesitancy in investment circles </h3>The uncertainty linked to tariffs has extended beyond supply chains and into financial markets, creating doubt and hesitancy in terms of investment. “Everyone is waiting to find out what the final rules of the road are so we can apply them,” Eshkenazi said. “In the short term, there’s a lot of ’wait and see,’ and in the long term we’re already seeing a hesitancy on investment in supply chain infrastructure as well as in securing capital. “That will be an extraordinary problem down the road, because the consumer is still going to want to buy,” he added. “The question is, ‘what does your market demand look like, and where do you serve it from?’” Eshkenazi noted that companies in the US were looking at diversifying both suppliers and manufacturing facilities, but much of the investment was on pause. “Companies are not developing plants that sit idle, or having staff sit idle at home waiting to be actuated,” he said. “No investment is going to be done in parallel activities just in case.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

BRUSSELS — The US tariff whiplash is forcing those who manage supply chains to shrink planning horizons, increase inventory carrying costs and put strategic investment on hold, according to the CEO of the Association for Supply Chain Management. While the Trump administration pursues its so-called “reciprocal trade agenda,” Abe Eshkenazi said the inability to predict the next tariff move was unsettling for cargo owners and their service providers. “A lot of the strategic investments and a lot of the capital investments have been put on hold,” Eshkenazi told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week at the CHAINge Europe supply chain conference. “It’s hard to convince a CEO to spend $2 billion on a new plant when he doesn’t know if you’re going to manufacture for local markets or for a global marketplace,” he added. “As a [beneficial cargo owner], this is going to be the life that you lead over the next few years.” Eshkenazi said planning horizons have shrunk because of the lack of visibility in ever-changing tariff-driven demand, especially on the trans-Pacific. He emphasized that the tariff disruption to global trade was not a supply and demand issue, which supply chains were well-suited to handle, but rather a pricing issue. “That is a big problem for us because it changes constantly,” he said. “How much is the tariff? When is it going to be applied? Is it consistent? We are accustomed to disruption, but more in the form of long-term issues, as opposed to something that’s on today, off tomorrow, or 20% now, then 50% or 100%.” A pause on higher tariffs on most of the US’ trading partners is in effect until July 9, while the pause on the 145% tariff on imports from China is due to expire Aug. 14. President Donald Trump wrote last week on his social media platform that a deal with Beijing will see US tariffs set at 55% for Chinese imports, up from 30%, while China’s tariffs on US goods remain at 10%. However, there has not yet been a formal deal signed between Beijing and Washington. Importers building inventory buffers Eshkenazi warned that cargo owners in the US were being forced to carry too much inventory as a risk management strategy, and that “can only last so long.” “You can’t continue to build up inventories or your CFO is going to have a conversation and ask why you are draining capital for stock just sitting there and nobody moving it,” he noted. Trade disruption caused by the US tariffs dominated discussions at the Brussels conference, with attendees expressing their frustration at managing cargo flows in such a fluid environment. “It has taken us almost three years to go through the additional inventory built up to cope with supply chain disruptions and we are now having to bring in buffer stocks again to try to manage the risk,” the supply chain director for a global shipper said. A US importer said if the intention of the Trump tariffs was to bring manufacturing back to the US, “no one would buy our products because they would be too expensive.” Other roundtable attendees highlighted the recent trans-Pacific rate environment where carriers were rolling out general rate increases every two weeks to take advantage of what had been heavy demand after tariffs on China were paused in May and importers rushed to get shipments on the water. But spot rates on the two main Asia-US trade lanes are now falling. The Asia-US West Coast rate this week of $3,500 per FEU is down 32% from the previous week, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Rates from Asia to the US East Coast fell 11% week over week to $6,500/FEU. Doubt, hesitancy in investment circles The uncertainty linked to tariffs has extended beyond supply chains and into financial markets, creating doubt and hesitancy in terms of investment. “Everyone is waiting to find out what the final rules of the road are so we can apply them,” Eshkenazi said. “In the short term, there’s a lot of ’wait and see,’ and in the long term we’re already seeing a hesitancy on investment in supply chain infrastructure as well as in securing capital. “That will be an extraordinary problem down the road, because the consumer is still going to want to buy,” he added. “The question is, ‘what does your market demand look like, and where do you serve it from?’” Eshkenazi noted that companies in the US were looking at diversifying both suppliers and manufacturing facilities, but much of the investment was on pause. “Companies are not developing plants that sit idle, or having staff sit idle at home waiting to be actuated,” he said. “No investment is going to be done in parallel activities just in case.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Changing US tariffs force structural shift in global supply chains: ASCM

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Strong demand for much of the year has kept North European ports under pressure, slowing attempts to ease the bottlenecks.</div>

Strong demand for much of the year has kept North European ports under pressure, slowing attempts to ease the bottlenecks.

<div class="phx-topic">BRUSSELS — North European ports will continue to face disruption and congestion “for many more months” with little improvement in the series of factors contributing to the ongoing bottlenecks, according to an executive with the port of Antwerp-Bruges. Luc Arnouts, vice president of international relations and networks at Europe’s busiest port, said container yards were full at the main hubs, ships were arriving outside their berthing windows, intermittent strikes at some ports were having a knock-on effect, carrier alliances were reshuffling capacity, and low water on the Rhine and delays in hinterland moves were all holding up traffic. “Terminal occupancy is high in all the major ports so when ships do not arrive within their berthing window and arrive a day later, that disrupts the whole operation,” he told the CHAINge Europe supply chain conference here this week. Strong demand for much of the year has kept North European ports under pressure, slowing attempts to mitigate the bottlenecks. The latest Asia-to-Europe volume data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) is for April, when 1.64 million TEUs were transported westward, an increase of 8.6% year over year and a 6% gain from March. In the first four months of 2025, total Asia-Europe volume was up 9% year over year at 6.13 million TEUs, with the Asia-North Europe segment rising 6.6%, to 3.72 million TEUs, and Asia-Mediterranean surging 12.14%, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to CTS. Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer port visibility tool noted that port congestion in North European ports such as Antwerp, Hamburg and Bremerhaven was extending transit times with delays in berthing, operational disruptions and high yard utilization. The platform reported that container yards in Antwerp-Bruges were at 100% and carriers were reporting waiting times of up to three days, with truck slots limited and fully booked early each day. Container yards at Bremerhaven, one of the hubs for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation, are currently at 85%, while some terminals in Rotterdam are reportedly at 80% utilization. Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics, said ports in southern Europea were also seeing congestion due to longer transits around the Cape of Good Hope as Mediterranean importers began to stock up earlier for the winter holiday sales season. “There were lower inventories in Europe and stronger sales than importers expected,” he told the Journal of Commerce this week, with the reshuffling of alliances adding to the bottlenecks. “When you’ve got the redeployment of the new alliances happening, you’re always going to have some initial operational challenges when things start arriving at different berthing windows, different setups,” he said. “And, of course, you have the traditional labor challenges,” he added. <h3>Dockworker strikes add to port woes </h3>Those labor challenges were coming on top of the high demand and operational challenges, with dockworker strikes continuing to impact European ports. A nationwide strike in Belgium on May 20 brought vessel traffic at the Port of Antwerp-Bruges to a halt, further stretching the system. Another national “day of action” will be held by unions in Belgium on June 25. Dockworker unions in Sweden launched strikes and blockade actions at multiple ports this week, with APM Terminals Gothenburg to be impacted on June 23 and 24. “There is not much free space in in the system, so this all has a knock-on impact,” Arnouts said. “If you are at a high level of frequency, you can imagine that adds to the disruption, on top of the uncertainty over tariffs that create shocks in cargo flows.” The latest data from Sea-Intelligence shows global schedule reliability has improved from 51.4% in January to 58.7% in April. Despite the steady improvement this year, Arnouts said it was too early to determine whether the better on-time performance was being seen in the port. He also highlighted a lack of transparency across the cargo supply chain that was a source of continuing frustration. “When a container arrives at a container terminal, often we don’t know the next mode of transport,” he said. “Can you imagine that a container comes in, needs to go the next day on a barge to Basel or on a truck to Duisburg and often we don’t know that. “There is so much communication in the supply chain but still we need to fight to get the right ETA [estimated time of arrival] of a ship that’s a part of the supply chain as well,” he added. “If you don’t know when the ship arrives, you don’t know what the next step will be.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

BRUSSELS — North European ports will continue to face disruption and congestion “for many more months” with little improvement in the series of factors contributing to the ongoing bottlenecks, according to an executive with the port of Antwerp-Bruges. Luc Arnouts, vice president of international relations and networks at Europe’s busiest port, said container yards were full at the main hubs, ships were arriving outside their berthing windows, intermittent strikes at some ports were having a knock-on effect, carrier alliances were reshuffling capacity, and low water on the Rhine and delays in hinterland moves were all holding up traffic. “Terminal occupancy is high in all the major ports so when ships do not arrive within their berthing window and arrive a day later, that disrupts the whole operation,” he told the CHAINge Europe supply chain conference here this week. Strong demand for much of the year has kept North European ports under pressure, slowing attempts to mitigate the bottlenecks. The latest Asia-to-Europe volume data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) is for April, when 1.64 million TEUs were transported westward, an increase of 8.6% year over year and a 6% gain from March. In the first four months of 2025, total Asia-Europe volume was up 9% year over year at 6.13 million TEUs, with the Asia-North Europe segment rising 6.6%, to 3.72 million TEUs, and Asia-Mediterranean surging 12.14%, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to CTS. Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer port visibility tool noted that port congestion in North European ports such as Antwerp, Hamburg and Bremerhaven was extending transit times with delays in berthing, operational disruptions and high yard utilization. The platform reported that container yards in Antwerp-Bruges were at 100% and carriers were reporting waiting times of up to three days, with truck slots limited and fully booked early each day. Container yards at Bremerhaven, one of the hubs for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation, are currently at 85%, while some terminals in Rotterdam are reportedly at 80% utilization. Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics, said ports in southern Europea were also seeing congestion due to longer transits around the Cape of Good Hope as Mediterranean importers began to stock up earlier for the winter holiday sales season. “There were lower inventories in Europe and stronger sales than importers expected,” he told the Journal of Commerce this week, with the reshuffling of alliances adding to the bottlenecks. “When you’ve got the redeployment of the new alliances happening, you’re always going to have some initial operational challenges when things start arriving at different berthing windows, different setups,” he said. “And, of course, you have the traditional labor challenges,” he added. Dockworker strikes add to port woes Those labor challenges were coming on top of the high demand and operational challenges, with dockworker strikes continuing to impact European ports. A nationwide strike in Belgium on May 20 brought vessel traffic at the Port of Antwerp-Bruges to a halt, further stretching the system. Another national “day of action” will be held by unions in Belgium on June 25. Dockworker unions in Sweden launched strikes and blockade actions at multiple ports this week, with APM Terminals Gothenburg to be impacted on June 23 and 24. “There is not much free space in in the system, so this all has a knock-on impact,” Arnouts said. “If you are at a high level of frequency, you can imagine that adds to the disruption, on top of the uncertainty over tariffs that create shocks in cargo flows.” The latest data from Sea-Intelligence shows global schedule reliability has improved from 51.4% in January to 58.7% in April. Despite the steady improvement this year, Arnouts said it was too early to determine whether the better on-time performance was being seen in the port. He also highlighted a lack of transparency across the cargo supply chain that was a source of continuing frustration. “When a container arrives at a container terminal, often we don’t know the next mode of transport,” he said. “Can you imagine that a container comes in, needs to go the next day on a barge to Basel or on a truck to Duisburg and often we don’t know that. “There is so much communication in the supply chain but still we need to fight to get the right ETA [estimated time of arrival] of a ship that’s a part of the supply chain as well,” he added. “If you don’t know when the ship arrives, you don’t know what the next step will be.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Months of congestion ahead for North Europe ports: Antwerp-Bruges

Use code SKSGW995 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

SUMMER KICKOFF SALE

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code SKSW595 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

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SkSW25 at checkout to save 25% on a SIlver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUMMER KICKOFF SALE: Use code SKSGW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUMMER KICKOFF SALE: Use code SKSW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUMMER KICKOFF SALE: Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With little relief forthcoming, cargo owners need to build delays into their shipping plans as port and ship capacity remain tight, speakers at the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s annual meeting said.</div>

With little relief forthcoming, cargo owners need to build delays into their shipping plans as port and ship capacity remain tight, speakers at the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s annual meeting said.

<div class="phx-topic">TACOMA — Ongoing congestion at Asian and European transshipment ports and stricter carbon emission rules are hurting vessel schedule reliability, industry experts said at an agriculture shipping conference this week. With little relief on either issue forthcoming, cargo owners need to build delays into their shipping plans as port and ship capacity remain tight. Speaking at the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s (AgTC’s) annual meeting here, Kuehne + Nagel Vice President Bill Rooney said schedule reliability among ocean carriers is “still a dumpster fire.” He cited data that showed less than 60% of vessel calls in April globally were within a day of their scheduled berthing window. The post-COVID-19 high for schedule reliability was near 65%, Rooney said, adding that he doubts the industry can hit that target, much less pre-pandemic levels of service reliability. Agriculture shippers are among the most sensitive to poor schedule reliability due to the high handling costs and perishability of their products. “The traditional number was more like 75% or 80%,” Rooney said. “I’m not sure we’ll get back there.” Since its start this year, the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has said it has been reaching its 90% schedule reliability goal regularly. However, Rooney said that likely reflects major linehaul services from the two carriers and not necessarily feeder or standalone services. Individually, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have global schedule reliability hovering under 70%, he estimated. “They may achieve 90% on your trade lane, but my advice is to check whether your port is now a feeder port versus a linehaul port,” said Rooney. Slower ships factor into the lower reliability, he said. In 2023, the global fleet averaged speeds at just under 14 knots, or about 16 miles per hour. That’s the slowest speed on record and about half the average speed that ships traveled 50 years earlier, he said. “If you were 12 hours behind schedule, you could step on the gas and make your slot at your terminal,” Rooney said. “That’s not happening ever again.” He added shippers will have to plan around the fact that schedule reliability will likely remain subpar indefinitely. “You want to build a resilient supply chain? Resiliency is recognizing that the ships are seldom on time,” Rooney said. <h3>IMO rules, port congestion </h3>In 2023, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) rating went into effect for ships, requiring them to report and collect fuel consumption data. Fabio Santucci, US president for Mediterranean Shipping Co., said lower speeds reduce fuel consumption to meet the increasingly strict CII ratings. “Vessels cannot legally afford to go any faster,” Santucci said. “That’s where we lost, as an industry, the ability to catch up.” Along with slower speeds, ports globally are operating at nearly full capacity, Santucci said. Overall, there were about 900 million TEUs of containers shipped globally in 2024, with nameplate port capacity at about 1 billion TEUs. Santucci said congestion both inside and outside a port takes up the remaining capacity, leaving little space to manage cargo. While North American ports are mostly fluid, other ports across the globe right now are experiencing congestion levels as high as during the pandemic, Santucci said, with the problem most acute at major transshipment ports. “If your cargo is transshipping, it’s witnessing congestion levels that are as high as those seen during COVID,” he said. “While we don’t see this effect in the United States, we have issues pretty much everywhere else in the world.” Among major European transshipment ports, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/no-end-to-the-congestion-choking-gateway-ports-in-north-europe-5995853">Hamburg</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bottlenecks-flare-in-barcelona-as-port-battles-rise-in-transshipment-volumes-5244343">Tanger Med</a> are “heavily disrupted,” according to a Kuehne + Nagel port status report. In the Western Hemisphere, Santucci said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cargo-bottlenecks-persist-at-mexicos-manzanillo-port-one-month-after-strike-6027313">Manzanillo</a> and the transshipment ports of Panama are also congested. Many ports throughout China are also congested, as are the Southeast Asia ports, including Malaysia’s Port Klang and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/asia-port-disruption-wave-reaches-singapore-6014754">Singapore</a>, which Santucci said has been working at close to full capacity for months. “Singapore has been steadily working at 90% capacity for months and months and months,” Santucci said. “I can tell you that working at 90% capacity for months generates a lot of inefficiencies.” MSC’s large fleet allows it to offer more direct port calls, but Santucci said transshipping will remain a necessity for some services, particularly as shippers diversify their product sourcing to other countries. With only about 1% of the global container fleet idled, Santucci said carriers have little capacity to offer more direct services without the use of transshipping. “Transshipment is always going to remain the Achilles heel of any network,” he said. “The more you transship, the more issues and more costs you’re going to have.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

TACOMA — Ongoing congestion at Asian and European transshipment ports and stricter carbon emission rules are hurting vessel schedule reliability, industry experts said at an agriculture shipping conference this week. With little relief on either issue forthcoming, cargo owners need to build delays into their shipping plans as port and ship capacity remain tight. Speaking at the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s (AgTC’s) annual meeting here, Kuehne + Nagel Vice President Bill Rooney said schedule reliability among ocean carriers is “still a dumpster fire.” He cited data that showed less than 60% of vessel calls in April globally were within a day of their scheduled berthing window. The post-COVID-19 high for schedule reliability was near 65%, Rooney said, adding that he doubts the industry can hit that target, much less pre-pandemic levels of service reliability. Agriculture shippers are among the most sensitive to poor schedule reliability due to the high handling costs and perishability of their products. “The traditional number was more like 75% or 80%,” Rooney said. “I’m not sure we’ll get back there.” Since its start this year, the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has said it has been reaching its 90% schedule reliability goal regularly. However, Rooney said that likely reflects major linehaul services from the two carriers and not necessarily feeder or standalone services. Individually, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have global schedule reliability hovering under 70%, he estimated. “They may achieve 90% on your trade lane, but my advice is to check whether your port is now a feeder port versus a linehaul port,” said Rooney. Slower ships factor into the lower reliability, he said. In 2023, the global fleet averaged speeds at just under 14 knots, or about 16 miles per hour. That’s the slowest speed on record and about half the average speed that ships traveled 50 years earlier, he said. “If you were 12 hours behind schedule, you could step on the gas and make your slot at your terminal,” Rooney said. “That’s not happening ever again.” He added shippers will have to plan around the fact that schedule reliability will likely remain subpar indefinitely. “You want to build a resilient supply chain? Resiliency is recognizing that the ships are seldom on time,” Rooney said. IMO rules, port congestion In 2023, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) rating went into effect for ships, requiring them to report and collect fuel consumption data. Fabio Santucci, US president for Mediterranean Shipping Co., said lower speeds reduce fuel consumption to meet the increasingly strict CII ratings. “Vessels cannot legally afford to go any faster,” Santucci said. “That’s where we lost, as an industry, the ability to catch up.” Along with slower speeds, ports globally are operating at nearly full capacity, Santucci said. Overall, there were about 900 million TEUs of containers shipped globally in 2024, with nameplate port capacity at about 1 billion TEUs. Santucci said congestion both inside and outside a port takes up the remaining capacity, leaving little space to manage cargo. While North American ports are mostly fluid, other ports across the globe right now are experiencing congestion levels as high as during the pandemic, Santucci said, with the problem most acute at major transshipment ports. “If your cargo is transshipping, it’s witnessing congestion levels that are as high as those seen during COVID,” he said. “While we don’t see this effect in the United States, we have issues pretty much everywhere else in the world.” Among major European transshipment ports, Hamburg and Tanger Med are “heavily disrupted,” according to a Kuehne + Nagel port status report. In the Western Hemisphere, Santucci said Manzanillo and the transshipment ports of Panama are also congested. Many ports throughout China are also congested, as are the Southeast Asia ports, including Malaysia’s Port Klang and Singapore , which Santucci said has been working at close to full capacity for months. “Singapore has been steadily working at 90% capacity for months and months and months,” Santucci said. “I can tell you that working at 90% capacity for months generates a lot of inefficiencies.” MSC’s large fleet allows it to offer more direct port calls, but Santucci said transshipping will remain a necessity for some services, particularly as shippers diversify their product sourcing to other countries. With only about 1% of the global container fleet idled, Santucci said carriers have little capacity to offer more direct services without the use of transshipping. “Transshipment is always going to remain the Achilles heel of any network,” he said. “The more you transship, the more issues and more costs you’re going to have.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Poor ocean reliability presents major challenge for US ag exporters

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The shutdown, due to begin Tuesday evening, will disrupt a broad range of businesses that use DHL, from apparel brands such as Lululemon to industrial companies including Siemens Canada.</div>

The shutdown, due to begin Tuesday evening, will disrupt a broad range of businesses that use DHL, from apparel brands such as Lululemon to industrial companies including Siemens Canada.

<div class="phx-topic">DHL Express, one of the top road carriers in Canada, will stop accepting parcels within the country and between Canada and the US until further notice due to a contract dispute with union workers north of the border and new federal legislation from Ottawa that restricts the use of replacement workers. The shutdown, due to begin Tuesday evening, will disrupt a broad range of businesses that use DHL, from apparel brands such as Lululemon to industrial companies including Siemens Canada. Major e-commercial retailers Shein and Temu would also be impacted. The halt will impact parcel operations in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Quebec. “DHL Express will continue discussions with [labor] over a new collective agreement that provides fair compensation to our team members while ensuring a sustainable, long-term foundation for our operations in Canada,” DHL said in an advisory Monday. “We remain committed to the process and hope to reach an agreement soon that allows us to resume the provision of the high quality of service our customers have come to expect of DHL.” Other divisions, such as DHL’s less-than-truckload operations and supply chain solutions business, are not affected. DHL was unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement with Unifor, the union representing more than 2,100 truck drivers and warehouse and sortation workers responsible for parcel deliveries. Union labor walked off the job June 8, prompting DHL to use replacement workers to handle parcel volumes. On June 20, however, <a href="https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-58">legislation will go into effect</a> prohibiting the use of replacement workers, leaving no legal means for DHL to keep parcel operations running without union labor. Violating the new regulation would result in a C$100,000 ($73,250) per day fine. The primary dispute in the contract negotiations is the size of proposed salary increases for hourly employees and owner-operator truck drivers. <h3>Alternatives could minimize disruption </h3>Competitors FedEx, UPS and Canada Post and regional carriers such as Purolator remain operational and will likely absorb additional volumes until the DHL dispute is resolved, which may minimize the disruption to shippers. Nevertheless, costs could rise in the short term. UPS enacted <a href="https://assets.ups.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:2840054d-e7bd-47d5-925d-a940bcd4efe5/original/as/surge-fee-us-en.pdf">surge fees</a> last month on US-to-Canada parcels in anticipation of DHL’s labor disruption. The fees consist of an additional $1.25 per pound for UPS Worldwide Economy packages to Canada and $0.49 per package on UPS Standard service to Canada and expedited service such as UPS Worldwide Express. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.Journal of Commerce Research Analyst Cathy Morrow Roberson contributed to this report.</div>

DHL Express, one of the top road carriers in Canada, will stop accepting parcels within the country and between Canada and the US until further notice due to a contract dispute with union workers north of the border and new federal legislation from Ottawa that restricts the use of replacement workers. The shutdown, due to begin Tuesday evening, will disrupt a broad range of businesses that use DHL, from apparel brands such as Lululemon to industrial companies including Siemens Canada. Major e-commercial retailers Shein and Temu would also be impacted. The halt will impact parcel operations in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Quebec. “DHL Express will continue discussions with [labor] over a new collective agreement that provides fair compensation to our team members while ensuring a sustainable, long-term foundation for our operations in Canada,” DHL said in an advisory Monday. “We remain committed to the process and hope to reach an agreement soon that allows us to resume the provision of the high quality of service our customers have come to expect of DHL.” Other divisions, such as DHL’s less-than-truckload operations and supply chain solutions business, are not affected. DHL was unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement with Unifor, the union representing more than 2,100 truck drivers and warehouse and sortation workers responsible for parcel deliveries. Union labor walked off the job June 8, prompting DHL to use replacement workers to handle parcel volumes. On June 20, however, legislation will go into effect prohibiting the use of replacement workers, leaving no legal means for DHL to keep parcel operations running without union labor. Violating the new regulation would result in a C$100,000 ($73,250) per day fine. The primary dispute in the contract negotiations is the size of proposed salary increases for hourly employees and owner-operator truck drivers. Alternatives could minimize disruption Competitors FedEx, UPS and Canada Post and regional carriers such as Purolator remain operational and will likely absorb additional volumes until the DHL dispute is resolved, which may minimize the disruption to shippers. Nevertheless, costs could rise in the short term. UPS enacted surge fees last month on US-to-Canada parcels in anticipation of DHL’s labor disruption. The fees consist of an additional $1.25 per pound for UPS Worldwide Economy packages to Canada and $0.49 per package on UPS Standard service to Canada and expedited service such as UPS Worldwide Express. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com . Journal of Commerce Research Analyst Cathy Morrow Roberson contributed to this report.

Trucking News

DHL Express to suspend Canadian parcel business amid labor dispute

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The China-based liners carried a combined 1.09 million TEUs in imports to the US through April, up 23% over the same period in 2024, according to Journal of Commerce rankings. </div>

The China-based liners carried a combined 1.09 million TEUs in imports to the US through April, up 23% over the same period in 2024, according to Journal of Commerce rankings.

Cosco Shipping and its OOCL subsidiary, already the top carriers for US imports from Asia, grew their combined volumes substantially during the first four months of the year, according to the Journal of Commerce rankings of the top 15 container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific. The liners carried almost 1.09 million TEUs in imports to the US through April, up 23% over the same period in 2024. Their combined market share increased 1.6 percentage points to 17%. The big gains for the Chinese carriers came amid increasing scrutiny of China’s maritime industry and attempts by Washington to dull that influence . The top 15 container lines for imports carried 98.9% of the 6.4 million TEUs from Asia in the first four months of 2025, up 11.2% year over year. The carriers in second through sixth place saw slight year-over-year declines in market share. CMA CGM/APL retained the second slot for imports with 830,039 TEUs, good for a 13% market share. Their combined volumes fell almost 5% during the first four months, shrinking market share by 2.2 percentage points. Mediterranean Shipping Co. moved from fourth in 2024 to third this year, importing 11.5% of US cargo from Asia through April. MSC brought in 739,324 TEUs, up 10.5% from 2024. Bumped to fourth, Ocean Network Express’s (ONE’s) market share was 11.3%, down 0.6 percentage point from 2024. Evergreen Line trimmed the same from its market share to land in fifth place with 10.9%. Sixth place went to A.P. Møller – Maersk, with 8.9% of the total market share — down 2 percentage points from last year. Zim Integrated Shipping Services and Hapag-Lloyd increased their eastbound trans-Pacific market share during the first four months, driven by big gains in volumes. Zim increased its imports 47.3%, while Hapag-Lloyd’s grew 43.9%. Exports shift slightly The rankings for the top 15 carriers for exports to Asia in the first four months of 2025 showed less volatility, with no changes to the top six slots. With the largest market share for exports at 16.3%, CMA CGM moved out 275,585 TEUs. Overall, though, the carrier’s export volumes fell 13.3% year over year, while its market share decreased 1.6 percentage points. ONE maintained second place for exports with a 15.6% market share, down 1.9 percentage points from last year; Cosco was unmoved at 14.9% in third place, up 0.2 percentage point. The top 15 trans-Pacific container lines for exports carried 99.9% of the 1.7 million TEUs that moved from the US to Asia in the first four months of 2025, down 4.6% year over year. Port rankings steady On the port side, the market share for US imports from Asia was mostly unchanged through the first four months of the year. The Journal of Commerce rankings had the Port of Los Angeles in the top slot, handling 24.2% of US imports from January through April. Volumes of 1.55 million TEUs were up 6% from last year. The Port of Long Beach brought in 23.9% of imports, with volumes jumping 25.3% to 1.53 million TEUs. The Port of New York and New Jersey was in third place with a 12.2% market share, with Savannah at 10.3%. The only shift occurred between fifth and sixth place, where the Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma overtook Houston with a 6.2% market share against Houston’s 5.8%. The Journal of Commerce top 15 US ports for imports from Asia handled 6.4 million TEUs from Asia in the first four months, up 11.2% year over year. Meanwhile, the top seven ports for exports were unchanged, also led by Los Angeles and Long Beach with 23.3% and 13.9% market shares, respectively. The top 15 US ports by exports to Asia handled 98.6% of the 1.7 million TEUs in the first four months of 2025, a decrease of 4.6% from 2024. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .Journal of Commerce Top 15 Container Lines by US Imports from Asia Containerized US imports from Asia, in laden TEUs, January-April 2025 vs. January-April 2024 Rank Carrier Market Share 2024 2025 YoY Change 1 Cosco Shipping/OOCL 17.0% 884,071 1,087,455 23.0% 2 CMA CGM/APL 13.0% 872,388 830,039 -4.9% 3 Mediterranean Shipping Co. 11.5% 668,993 739,324 10.5% 4 Ocean Network Express 11.3% 683,332 724,227 6.0% 5 Evergreen Line 10.9% 666,918 701,312 5.2% 6 A.P. Møller - Maersk* 8.9% 626,832 571,105 -8.9% 7 Zim Integrated Shipping Services 6.2% 270,601 398,529 47.3% 8 Hapag-Lloyd 5.4% 238,473 343,187 43.9% 9 HMM 4.5% 275,015 290,757 5.7% 10 Yang Ming Line 3.8% 262,653 243,649 -7.2% 11 Wan Hai Lines 2.8% 115,794 178,931 54.5% 12 SM Line 1.5% 97,424 94,363 -3.1% 13 Matson 1.1% 64,762 67,609 4.4% 14 Swire Shipping 0.5% 14,721 31,852 116.4% 15 Sea Lead 0.5% 30,949 TOTAL US IMPORTS FROM ASIA 5,762,698 6,405,895 11.2% *A.P. Møller - Maersk includes Maersk Line, Sealand, Safmarine and Hamburg Süd. Source: S&P Global © 2025 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 15 Container Lines by US Exports to Asia Containerized US exports to Asia, in laden TEUs, January-April 2025 vs. January-April 2024 Rank Carrier Market Share 2024 2025 YoY Change 1 CMA CGM/APL 4.3% 317,947 275,585 -13.3% 2 Ocean Network Express 4.1% 309,434 263,244 -14.9% 3 Cosco Shipping/OOCL 3.9% 260,067 251,734 -3.2% 4 Evergreen Line 3.1% 206,778 198,392 -4.1% 5 Mediterranean Shipping Co. 2.6% 163,470 163,710 0.1% 6 A.P. Møller - Maersk* 1.9% 133,450 124,682 -6.6% 7 Hapag-Lloyd 1.9% 48,988 122,092 149.2% 8 HMM 1.8% 116,130 116,550 0.4% 9 Yang Ming Line 1.4% 85,229 86,893 2.0% 10 Zim Integrated Shipping Services 0.5% 82,387 32,718 -60.3% 11 SM Line 0.4% 25,072 28,437 13.4% 12 Wan Hai Lines 0.2% 5,099 9,610 88.5% 13 Swire Shipping 0.0% 5,161 1,852 -64.1% 14 Matson 0.0% 10,804 1,503 -86.1% 15 Wallenius Wilhelmen Lines 0.0% 6 2 -65.2% TOTAL US EXPORTS TO ASIA 1,770,766 1,689,094 -4.6% *A.P. Møller - Maersk includes Maersk Line, Sealand, Safmarine, and Hamburg Süd. Source: S&P Global © 2025 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 15 US Ports by Imports from Asia Containerized US imports from Asia, in laden TEUs, January-April 2025 vs. January-April 2024 Rank US Port Market Share 2024 2025 YoY Change 1 Los Angeles, Calif. 24.2% 1,462,756 1,550,833 6.0% 2 Long Beach, Calif. 23.9% 1,223,285 1,532,235 25.3% 3 New York and New Jersey 12.2% 700,707 780,517 11.4% 4 Savannah, Ga. 10.3% 589,565 662,445 12.4% 5 Northwest Seaport Alliance 6.2% 339,529 396,475 16.8% 6 Houston, Texas 5.8% 354,348 373,637 5.4% 7 Oakland, Calif. 3.7% 229,170 236,807 3.3% 8 Virginia 3.7% 248,774 234,650 -5.7% 9 Charleston, SC 3.6% 231,030 229,947 -0.5% 10 Baltimore, Md. 1.6% 68,093 102,490 50.5% 11 Mobile, Ala. 1.2% 86,580 73,699 -14.9% 12 Miami, Fla. 1.0% 60,569 62,420 3.1% 13 Jacksonville, Fla. 0.7% 40,005 43,921 9.8% 14 Tampa, Fla. 0.6% 38,651 36,518 -5.5% 15 Boston, Mass. 0.5% 28,024 29,314 4.6% TOTAL US IMPORTS FROM ASIA 5,762,698 6,405,895 11.2% Source: S&P Global © 2025 S&P Global. Journal of Commerce Top 15 US Ports by Exports to Asia Containerized US exports to Asia, in laden TEUs, January-April 2025 vs. January-April 2024 Rank US Port Market Share 2024 2025 YoY Change 1 Los Angeles, Calif. 23.3% 378,676 393,297 3.9% 2 Long Beach, Calif. 13.9% 249,290 235,513 -5.5% 3 Northwest Seaport Alliance 10.2% 176,162 172,791 -1.9% 4 Oakland, Calif. 9.7% 163,631 164,450 0.5% 5 Savannah, Ga. 9.1% 166,011 153,736 -7.4% 6 New York and New Jersey 7.5% 130,587 127,497 -2.4% 7 Houston, Texas 7.4% 120,909 124,945 3.3% 8 Virginia 7.1% 152,688 119,715 -21.6% 9 Charleston, SC 4.3% 95,764 72,817 -24.0% 10 Baltimore, Md. 1.5% 23,635 24,882 5.3% 11 Mobile, Ala. 1.3% 28,181 21,498 -23.7% 12 New Orleans, La. 1.3% 17,444 21,275 22.0% 13 Portland, Ore. 0.8% 13,401 13,690 2.2% 14 Boston, Mass. 0.6% 12,995 10,477 -19.4% 15 Wilmington, NC 0.5% 11,067 8,291 -25.1% TOTAL US EXPORTS TO ASIA 1,770,766 1,689,094 -4.6% Source: S&P Global © 2025 S&P Global.

Indian exporters face overweight box surcharges as carriers push scalability

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Trans-Pacific spot rates falling as tariff-linked demand surge loses steam

Changing US tariffs force structural shift in global supply chains: ASCM

Months of congestion ahead for North Europe ports: Antwerp-Bruges

Recent Commentary

Act now before we wonder where all the containers have gone

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

Top 5 Most Read Stories