<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Port and terminal operators are looking to spend $6.7 billion over the next five years to install cranes and other equipment, an industry survey shows, as Washington is asked to help reshore manufacturing.</div>

Port and terminal operators are looking to spend $6.7 billion over the next five years to install cranes and other equipment, an industry survey shows, as Washington is asked to help reshore manufacturing.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US ports face an almost $7 billion price tag for ship-to-shore cranes and other container-handling equipment over the next five years, according to the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). But the spending is hamstrung amid an unclear tariff on Chinese cranes and halting efforts to reshore crane manufacturing to the US. In a survey of 25 port and terminal executives published Tuesday, NAWE said US ports and marine terminals will need more than 100 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes through 2031 to replace aging assets or provide new crane capacity. In total, NAWE expects US ports to need $6.7 billion in equipment over the next five years. “These findings underscore the scale and urgency of the investment challenge facing US ports,” NAWE President Carl Bentzel said in a statement accompanying the survey. “Modern cargo-handling equipment is essential to ensuring terminal productivity, supply chain resilience, and the ability of US ports to compete with international gateways.” New and replacement cranes, along with other cargo-handling equipment, account for $5.1 billion of NAWE’s estimate. In addition, US ports are looking to spend $917 million on rail-mounted stacking cranes and another $790 million for repairing existing STS cranes and equipment. Along with the equipment bill, Bentzel told the Journal of Commerce that equipment is just the “tip of the iceberg” as US ports need to spend many billions more to improve underlying infrastructure including road, rail and maritime access. NAWE released the survey as Congress takes up other infrastructure-related legislation, including the five-year surface transportation reauthorization, which provides federal support for roads and bridges. Bentzel said NAWE is looking to get the attention of both Congress and the White House about how they can help expedite and support those equipment purchases. NAWE members face uncertainty from Washington’s dual mandates of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-look-to-delay-proposed-us-tariffs-on-chinese-made-cranes-6007628">penalizing China’s maritime industry</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congress-eyes-a-tax-credit-for-reshoring-port-crane-manufacturing-6053124">how to reshore critical industries such as crane manufacturing</a>. US ports faced an array of Trump’s tariffs that added <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-america-to-pay-30-tariff-on-china-made-ship-to-shore-crane-6080582">30% to the cost of Chinese-made cranes</a>. In addition, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) levied a 25% penalty on Chinese-made ship-to-shore cranes under a 2024 investigation begun during the Biden administration. Under the Trump administration, the USTR intended to stack another 100% penalty on Chinese STS cranes as of last November. The Supreme Court has knocked down almost all of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs against China, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-china-suspend-reciprocal-port-fees-as-part-of-wider-trade-deal-6105849">while the USTR put a one-year pause on its 100% penalty</a>. Even so, Bentzel said it is unclear what the current tariff regime is for Chinese-made cranes, or if the Trump administration is even enforcing the Biden-era tariffs on cranes. NAWE called on the USTR to clarify the current state of penalties and tariffs on Chinese cranes. “The challenge is we don’t know what is happening with the United States Trade Representative,” Bentzel said. “There’s going to be a short-term need to continue using Chinese manufacturers. But no one in the industry can arrange for the construction and delivery of cranes with a one-year suspension.” <h3>Crane makers eye US yards </h3>In the long-term, Bentzel said critical industries such as crane and yard equipment need to be reshored so US ports will not be reliant on Chinese manufacturers. He said the White House and Congress need to begin the process now for reshoring crane manufacturing as it will take two years or more for a domestic manufacturer to start making cranes. NAWE recently added new members including European crane manufacturers Liebherr and Konecranes, along with Japan’s Paceco-Mitsui, as part of its outreach to reshore crane manufacturing, Bentzel said. Germany’s Kunz and Phoenix-based Stafford Port Cranes are also looking to join NAWE, he added. Sources have told the Journal of Commerce that Liebherr has inquired about laydown yard space on or near US ports to use for assembling and distributing cranes. Liebherr could not be reached for comment. Bentzel said the companies are only making soft inquiries now as they await clarity about long-term US trade policy on STS cranes. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/white-house-counters-risk-of-chinese-port-cranes-with-20-billion-for-us-sourcing-5200230">The Biden administration made $20 billion in infrastructure funding available</a> for STS crane makers to set up US operations. At the time, Paceco said it would invest in a new US facility, but it never went forward due to market uncertainty, Bentzel said. “NAWE’s members are supporting the onshoring of port cranes,” he said. “Those companies are doing a lot of assessing and waiting because the penalties on Chinese-made cranes aren’t clear.” With the Trump administration <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-signs-order-for-us-shipbuilding-but-stays-mute-on-port-fees-5980539">looking to revive</a> <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-administration-unveils-us-maritime-revitalization-action-plan-6169752">the US maritime industry</a>, Bentzel said now is the time to support US-made cranes. NAWE’s capital spending survey also sets the table for these companies on their addressable US market, he added. NAWE plans to lobby Congress to have funding made available to domestic crane manufacturers under the Defense Production Act, which supports industries critical to national security, or the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America (SHIPS) Act, Congress’ broad bill to incentivize the reshoring of ship building and crane-making. “Our argument is that if we don’t have this equipment and don’t create this domestic market, this will impact the nation’s fortunes in the long-term,” Bentzel said. “We believe without some level of assistance and direction, it will take us two years to get any domestic production going.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US ports face an almost $7 billion price tag for ship-to-shore cranes and other container-handling equipment over the next five years, according to the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). But the spending is hamstrung amid an unclear tariff on Chinese cranes and halting efforts to reshore crane manufacturing to the US. In a survey of 25 port and terminal executives published Tuesday, NAWE said US ports and marine terminals will need more than 100 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes through 2031 to replace aging assets or provide new crane capacity. In total, NAWE expects US ports to need $6.7 billion in equipment over the next five years. “These findings underscore the scale and urgency of the investment challenge facing US ports,” NAWE President Carl Bentzel said in a statement accompanying the survey. “Modern cargo-handling equipment is essential to ensuring terminal productivity, supply chain resilience, and the ability of US ports to compete with international gateways.” New and replacement cranes, along with other cargo-handling equipment, account for $5.1 billion of NAWE’s estimate. In addition, US ports are looking to spend $917 million on rail-mounted stacking cranes and another $790 million for repairing existing STS cranes and equipment. Along with the equipment bill, Bentzel told the Journal of Commerce that equipment is just the “tip of the iceberg” as US ports need to spend many billions more to improve underlying infrastructure including road, rail and maritime access. NAWE released the survey as Congress takes up other infrastructure-related legislation, including the five-year surface transportation reauthorization, which provides federal support for roads and bridges. Bentzel said NAWE is looking to get the attention of both Congress and the White House about how they can help expedite and support those equipment purchases. NAWE members face uncertainty from Washington’s dual mandates of penalizing China’s maritime industry and how to reshore critical industries such as crane manufacturing . US ports faced an array of Trump’s tariffs that added 30% to the cost of Chinese-made cranes . In addition, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) levied a 25% penalty on Chinese-made ship-to-shore cranes under a 2024 investigation begun during the Biden administration. Under the Trump administration, the USTR intended to stack another 100% penalty on Chinese STS cranes as of last November. The Supreme Court has knocked down almost all of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs against China, while the USTR put a one-year pause on its 100% penalty . Even so, Bentzel said it is unclear what the current tariff regime is for Chinese-made cranes, or if the Trump administration is even enforcing the Biden-era tariffs on cranes. NAWE called on the USTR to clarify the current state of penalties and tariffs on Chinese cranes. “The challenge is we don’t know what is happening with the United States Trade Representative,” Bentzel said. “There’s going to be a short-term need to continue using Chinese manufacturers. But no one in the industry can arrange for the construction and delivery of cranes with a one-year suspension.” Crane makers eye US yards In the long-term, Bentzel said critical industries such as crane and yard equipment need to be reshored so US ports will not be reliant on Chinese manufacturers. He said the White House and Congress need to begin the process now for reshoring crane manufacturing as it will take two years or more for a domestic manufacturer to start making cranes. NAWE recently added new members including European crane manufacturers Liebherr and Konecranes, along with Japan’s Paceco-Mitsui, as part of its outreach to reshore crane manufacturing, Bentzel said. Germany’s Kunz and Phoenix-based Stafford Port Cranes are also looking to join NAWE, he added. Sources have told the Journal of Commerce that Liebherr has inquired about laydown yard space on or near US ports to use for assembling and distributing cranes. Liebherr could not be reached for comment. Bentzel said the companies are only making soft inquiries now as they await clarity about long-term US trade policy on STS cranes. The Biden administration made $20 billion in infrastructure funding available for STS crane makers to set up US operations. At the time, Paceco said it would invest in a new US facility, but it never went forward due to market uncertainty, Bentzel said. “NAWE’s members are supporting the onshoring of port cranes,” he said. “Those companies are doing a lot of assessing and waiting because the penalties on Chinese-made cranes aren’t clear.” With the Trump administration looking to revive the US maritime industry , Bentzel said now is the time to support US-made cranes. NAWE’s capital spending survey also sets the table for these companies on their addressable US market, he added. NAWE plans to lobby Congress to have funding made available to domestic crane manufacturers under the Defense Production Act, which supports industries critical to national security, or the Shipbuilding and Harbor Infrastructure for Prosperity and Security for America (SHIPS) Act, Congress’ broad bill to incentivize the reshoring of ship building and crane-making. “Our argument is that if we don’t have this equipment and don’t create this domestic market, this will impact the nation’s fortunes in the long-term,” Bentzel said. “We believe without some level of assistance and direction, it will take us two years to get any domestic production going.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Port infrastructure

North American ports

Maritime

US ports outline spending goals in push to reshore crane making

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But court filings show that even after restructuring, the company is likely to operate with thin margins and a relatively modest cash cushion. </div>

But court filings show that even after restructuring, the company is likely to operate with thin margins and a relatively modest cash cushion.

<div class="phx-topic">STG Logistics has won court approval to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the coming weeks, clearing the way for a reorganization that will eliminate more than $1 billion in debt and close the legal battle that has hung over the transloading, drayage and intermodal provider since January. The plan, approved Monday by the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, also releases the final $25 million of a previously committed $150 million capital infusion. Ownership of the reorganized company will go to a lender group led by affiliates of Fortress Investment Group, Fidelity Management &amp; Research Company, and Invesco Senior Secured Management. “[This] puts our company on a clear path to emerge from Chapter 11 with a strong financial foundation and significantly deleveraged capital structure,” STG’s CEO Geoff Anderman said in a statement. The company has benefited from a rebound in domestic rail volumes after nearly four years of weak demand, which will stabilize the business after financial pressures pushed it into bankruptcy earlier this year. That rebound included an <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/soaring-truck-rates-power-major-rebound-in-domestic-intermodal-volume-6208736">unusually strong March</a> in which railroads hauled the third-most domestic containers ever, according to the Intermodal Association of North America. STG has been able to grow its business out of Southern California on a year-over-year basis, according to visibility provider RailState, although the exact figures are estimates. For intermodal, the biggest operating detail is the container fleet. STG reached an agreement to restructure leases on 11,500 of its 15,000 containers, allowing it to avoid selling equipment as part of the bankruptcy process. <h3>Revenue projected to rise at 6.9% CAGR through 2030 </h3>Court filings show that even after restructuring, STG is likely to operate with thin margins and a relatively modest cash cushion. The company expects revenue to rise at a 6.9% compound annual growth rate through 2030, according to a filing with the bankruptcy court. Even so, it projects earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITA) of only about 4% of revenue, a relatively thin margin. By comparison, J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Schneider National, who also handle intermodal, transloading and drayage, posted companywide first-quarter EBITDA margins of approximately 10% to 13%. STG’s projected cash balance is stronger than in January but remains tight. The company had about $37 million in cash when it filed for Chapter 11 in January, below the nearly $50 million threshold its advisers said was needed to cover about two weeks of operations. That threshold came from STG’s old debt agreements and will no longer apply after bankruptcy. Even so, projected cash on hand of $66 million in 2026, rising to an expected $85 million by 2030, suggests the company will still have a limited cushion. That will still leave STG exposed to swings in freight demand, insurance claims, and service disruptions in a highly cyclical businesses. Schneider, by comparison, ended the first quarter of 2026 with $227.8 million in cash on hand. For now, STG has bought itself time, a cleaner balance sheet and the backing of large financial institutions. Whether that amounts to a permanent resurgence rather than a temporary reprieve will depend on how much demand there is for intermodal, transloading, warehousing and drayage in the coming years. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

STG Logistics has won court approval to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the coming weeks, clearing the way for a reorganization that will eliminate more than $1 billion in debt and close the legal battle that has hung over the transloading, drayage and intermodal provider since January. The plan, approved Monday by the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, also releases the final $25 million of a previously committed $150 million capital infusion. Ownership of the reorganized company will go to a lender group led by affiliates of Fortress Investment Group, Fidelity Management & Research Company, and Invesco Senior Secured Management. “[This] puts our company on a clear path to emerge from Chapter 11 with a strong financial foundation and significantly deleveraged capital structure,” STG’s CEO Geoff Anderman said in a statement. The company has benefited from a rebound in domestic rail volumes after nearly four years of weak demand, which will stabilize the business after financial pressures pushed it into bankruptcy earlier this year. That rebound included an unusually strong March in which railroads hauled the third-most domestic containers ever, according to the Intermodal Association of North America. STG has been able to grow its business out of Southern California on a year-over-year basis, according to visibility provider RailState, although the exact figures are estimates. For intermodal, the biggest operating detail is the container fleet. STG reached an agreement to restructure leases on 11,500 of its 15,000 containers, allowing it to avoid selling equipment as part of the bankruptcy process. Revenue projected to rise at 6.9% CAGR through 2030 Court filings show that even after restructuring, STG is likely to operate with thin margins and a relatively modest cash cushion. The company expects revenue to rise at a 6.9% compound annual growth rate through 2030, according to a filing with the bankruptcy court. Even so, it projects earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITA) of only about 4% of revenue, a relatively thin margin. By comparison, J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Schneider National, who also handle intermodal, transloading and drayage, posted companywide first-quarter EBITDA margins of approximately 10% to 13%. STG’s projected cash balance is stronger than in January but remains tight. The company had about $37 million in cash when it filed for Chapter 11 in January, below the nearly $50 million threshold its advisers said was needed to cover about two weeks of operations. That threshold came from STG’s old debt agreements and will no longer apply after bankruptcy. Even so, projected cash on hand of $66 million in 2026, rising to an expected $85 million by 2030, suggests the company will still have a limited cushion. That will still leave STG exposed to swings in freight demand, insurance claims, and service disruptions in a highly cyclical businesses. Schneider, by comparison, ended the first quarter of 2026 with $227.8 million in cash on hand. For now, STG has bought itself time, a cleaner balance sheet and the backing of large financial institutions. Whether that amounts to a permanent resurgence rather than a temporary reprieve will depend on how much demand there is for intermodal, transloading, warehousing and drayage in the coming years. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

Bankruptcy court approves STG Logistics’ exit from Chapter 11

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The largest forwarding software provider globally adds heft to DCSA’s push to drive electronic standards in the ocean freight industry.</div>

The largest forwarding software provider globally adds heft to DCSA’s push to drive electronic standards in the ocean freight industry.

<div class="phx-topic">WiseTech Global is joining the Digital Container Shipping Association’s (DCSA’s) partnership program to help drive adoption of digital standards in the ocean freight industry, the two announced Tuesday. WiseTech, provider of the industry’s most widely used forwarding software, becomes the most prominent name in a growing list of technology vendors, consultants, third-party logistics providers (3PLs), and implementation specialists that are partners with DCSA under its DCSA+ program. “WiseTech has been among the earliest and most active implementers of DCSA standards since 2019, growing into one of the largest users of DCSA-specification carrier [application program interfaces] in the industry,” DCSA said in a statement. DSCA represents most of the world’s top container shipping companies as they collectively push for digital standards to become more engrained in the industry. Its ocean carrier members are Mediterranean Shipping Co., Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, CMA CGM, Evergreen, HMM, Yang Ming, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, and PIL. More than 90% of the world’s top 3PLs use WiseTech for freight management, accounting, visibility, or customs compliance. The company <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/wisetech-notches-biggest-acquisition-with-21-billion-deal-for-e2open-6011581">acquired E2open</a>, a platform that provides planning and transportation management software to global shippers, in May 2025, meaning it has connectivity to shipper, ocean carrier and forwarder systems and the data that passes between those entities. “Standardized integrations help our customers and their carrier partners to achieve their goals faster and more effectively by removing friction at critical data handover points,” Ashley Skaanild, WiseTech’s principal advisor for carrier integration and transformation, said in the joint statement. The DCSA+ program has seen a number of members join over the past six months, including IKEA, the program’s first shipper, and Unifeeder, bringing the total number of members to 20. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

WiseTech Global is joining the Digital Container Shipping Association’s (DCSA’s) partnership program to help drive adoption of digital standards in the ocean freight industry, the two announced Tuesday. WiseTech, provider of the industry’s most widely used forwarding software, becomes the most prominent name in a growing list of technology vendors, consultants, third-party logistics providers (3PLs), and implementation specialists that are partners with DCSA under its DCSA+ program. “WiseTech has been among the earliest and most active implementers of DCSA standards since 2019, growing into one of the largest users of DCSA-specification carrier [application program interfaces] in the industry,” DCSA said in a statement. DSCA represents most of the world’s top container shipping companies as they collectively push for digital standards to become more engrained in the industry. Its ocean carrier members are Mediterranean Shipping Co., Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, CMA CGM, Evergreen, HMM, Yang Ming, Zim Integrated Shipping Services, and PIL. More than 90% of the world’s top 3PLs use WiseTech for freight management, accounting, visibility, or customs compliance. The company acquired E2open , a platform that provides planning and transportation management software to global shippers, in May 2025, meaning it has connectivity to shipper, ocean carrier and forwarder systems and the data that passes between those entities. “Standardized integrations help our customers and their carrier partners to achieve their goals faster and more effectively by removing friction at critical data handover points,” Ashley Skaanild, WiseTech’s principal advisor for carrier integration and transformation, said in the joint statement. The DCSA+ program has seen a number of members join over the past six months, including IKEA, the program’s first shipper, and Unifeeder, bringing the total number of members to 20. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Forwarding

Container Shipping News

WiseTech joins partner program of container shipping digital standards group

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Richard Kloster joins the STB at an important time for the agency as it reviews the proposed $85 billion merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, which would be the largest US rail transaction in nearly three decades. </div>

Richard Kloster joins the STB at an important time for the agency as it reviews the proposed $85 billion merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, which would be the largest US rail transaction in nearly three decades.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Senate has confirmed the appointment of Richard Kloster to the Surface Transportation Board (STB), adding a third Republican to the regulatory body as it moves toward a pivotal early decision in Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). Kloster was approved Monday as part of a broader package of federal nominees that passed by a 46-43 party line vote. He fills the seat vacated by former STB Chairman Martin Oberman, who retired in May 2024. Kloster’s term runs through Dec. 31, 2028. Kloster has extensive experience as a consultant and board member on several transportation groups, including the National Industrial Transportation League and Railway Supply Institute. His confirmation gives Republicans a 3-1 edge on STB. Kloster joins Chairman Patrick Fuchs and Michelle Schultz, both Republicans, and Democrat Karen Hedlund. One seat remains vacant, but the board does not need all five seats filled to conduct business. Kloster joins STB at an important time for the agency as it reviews what would be the largest US rail transaction in nearly three decades. The regulatory body can rule as soon as May 29 on whether UP has submitted a “complete” application for its proposed merger with NS. The board previously <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stb-rejects-up-ns-merger-application-as-incomplete-6154074">ruled in January</a> that an initial application was “incomplete” and outlined several deficiencies that had to be rectified. UP filed a revised application on April 30. UP and NS argue that their revised application satisfies the STB’s requirements and that the review process should be allowed to continue. But rival railroads BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, and CSX Transportation have urged the STB to reject the filing again, arguing the second version of the application remains structurally deficient. If the STB deems the second application complete, then the merger proposal can move into a formal review process that would include environmental analysis, public hearings, and broader shipper input. Kloster’s path to the STB was delayed after his nomination failed to reach the Senate floor during the body’s prior session. He was re-nominated in January and advanced to the Senate floor in March on a party line vote. Kloster offered few insights on the UP-NS transaction during his Senate confirmation hearing last fall, saying only he would review the application thoroughly and not take his seat on the STB with a predetermined decision on the proposed merger. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Senate has confirmed the appointment of Richard Kloster to the Surface Transportation Board (STB), adding a third Republican to the regulatory body as it moves toward a pivotal early decision in Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). Kloster was approved Monday as part of a broader package of federal nominees that passed by a 46-43 party line vote. He fills the seat vacated by former STB Chairman Martin Oberman, who retired in May 2024. Kloster’s term runs through Dec. 31, 2028. Kloster has extensive experience as a consultant and board member on several transportation groups, including the National Industrial Transportation League and Railway Supply Institute. His confirmation gives Republicans a 3-1 edge on STB. Kloster joins Chairman Patrick Fuchs and Michelle Schultz, both Republicans, and Democrat Karen Hedlund. One seat remains vacant, but the board does not need all five seats filled to conduct business. Kloster joins STB at an important time for the agency as it reviews what would be the largest US rail transaction in nearly three decades. The regulatory body can rule as soon as May 29 on whether UP has submitted a “complete” application for its proposed merger with NS. The board previously ruled in January that an initial application was “incomplete” and outlined several deficiencies that had to be rectified. UP filed a revised application on April 30. UP and NS argue that their revised application satisfies the STB’s requirements and that the review process should be allowed to continue. But rival railroads BNSF Railway, Canadian Pacific Kansas City, and CSX Transportation have urged the STB to reject the filing again, arguing the second version of the application remains structurally deficient. If the STB deems the second application complete, then the merger proposal can move into a formal review process that would include environmental analysis, public hearings, and broader shipper input. Kloster’s path to the STB was delayed after his nomination failed to reach the Senate floor during the body’s prior session. He was re-nominated in January and advanced to the Senate floor in March on a party line vote. Kloster offered few insights on the UP-NS transaction during his Senate confirmation hearing last fall, saying only he would review the application thoroughly and not take his seat on the STB with a predetermined decision on the proposed merger. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Senate approves Kloster for seat on Surface Transportation Board

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Yet liner executives insist that much of the surplus tonnage can be absorbed by a combination of vessel management, trade imbalances, increased scrapping and the ongoing effects of geopolitical disruptions.</div>

Yet liner executives insist that much of the surplus tonnage can be absorbed by a combination of vessel management, trade imbalances, increased scrapping and the ongoing effects of geopolitical disruptions.

<div class="phx-topic">The profitability-sapping effects of vessel overcapacity from an order book closing in on 40% of the in-service fleet were on display in the first quarter when volume gains by some ocean carriers were not enough to prevent a steep drop in earnings. Declining average rates dragged down the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-passing-500-million-monthly-fuel-bill-to-customers-in-full-ceo-6216319">first-quarter results of Maersk and HMM</a>, despite solid volume increases; HMM reported a 14% increase in first-quarter volume, while Maersk reported “above market growth” of 9%. And despite stable volumes from other carriers such as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-posts-q1-net-loss-in-unsatisfactory-start-to-2026-6219964">Hapag-Lloyd</a>, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/one-expects-11-decline-in-fy26-net-profit-due-to-war-in-middle-east-6212215">Ocean Network Express</a>, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lower-freight-rates-hit-q1-revenues-for-taiwans-big-three-carriers-6204140">Evergreen, Yang Ming and OOCL</a>, their revenues were significantly eroded by weaker rates; Hapag even posted a loss in the first quarter. Yet carrier executives insist that the excess supply can be mitigated and the surplus tonnage absorbed — this year at least — by a combination of vessel management, trade imbalances, the ongoing effects of geopolitical disruption, and an increase in scrapping. Some heavy lifting will be required. Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc put the current excess supply in the market at 1 million to 1.5 million TEUs, with the longer routes around southern Africa absorbing another 2 million TEUs. “So, it’s about 3.5 million TEUs overall that is the total capacity overhang to normalized trade routes today,” Clerc said during Maersk’s recent first-quarter earnings call with analysts. But he believes excess capacity can be managed by carriers showing discipline in how they deploy capacity, a rise in scrapping and by a new wave of slow steaming that will be triggered by high energy costs. “The deliveries are okay this year, but they are picking up significantly next year, and that’s going to put further pressure on the overhang,” he added. Despite the significant capacity overhang, Clerc believes high energy costs, driven by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the ongoing war in the Middle East, will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to an additional 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” <h3>Swelling order book </h3>The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12.3 million TEUs, 37% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Sea-web data shows just over 1 million TEUs of capacity via ships over 10,000 TEUs is scheduled to be delivered this year, contributing to capacity growth of 4% amid market predictions for demand growth of 2% to 3% this year. About 2.3 million TEUs of capacity are due for delivery in 2027 and 3.4 million TEUs in 2028. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="4c149ebf-df6c-4535-a9b2-7d12091e03d8"></dynamic-object></div>Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Maersk’s Gemini Cooperation partner Hapag-Lloyd, also pointed to vessel management levers such as slow steaming and blank sailings, as well as increased scrapping, to limit the effects of excess tonnage. But he noted that another capacity-absorbing factor was emerging in the form of an imbalance between the dominant trade lanes of head-haul corridors and non-dominant lanes. Habben Jansen said growth on the dominant legs of a trade lane is what drives capacity needs, not the overall market growth, noting that strong growth on dominant trade lanes — 10% in 2024 and 8% in 2025 — was helping to offset the impact of new supply on rate levels. “In 2026, the growth on the dominant legs will be higher than the additional supply that comes into the market, acting as a mitigating factor against overcapacity,” he said during Hapag’s earnings call last week. <h3>Supply management to be tested </h3>How demand and rates shape up through the second quarter and peak season will put the capacity-mitigating confidence of carrier executives to the test, particularly on the trans-Pacific. US imports from Asia have fallen 4.6% this year through April, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Despite the weak demand, carriers on the trans-Pacific are having some success with rate increases amid an environment of sharply higher fuel costs. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce, believes rates are being supported by blank sailings, smaller vessel deployments and tighter space allocations. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9c18268a-1028-4fd5-916a-6a7afa16d7ec"></dynamic-object></div>Spot rates for Asia to the US West Coast were at $3,200 per FEU as of May 18 — up 84% in two months, according to Platts. East Coast rates were at $4,200/FEU. A series of general rate increases (GRIs) was issued in mid-May, with carriers announcing another set from June 1 as high as $3,000 per FEU, combined with a wave of fuel‑linked surcharge adjustments ranging from $200/FEU to $500/FEU. Asia-Europe volume from Container Trades Statistics is only available for the first quarter but shows a 13% increase year over year, continuing the strong demand recorded last year when the trade lane grew volume by 8%. Rates have been rising; on Asia-North Europe they are up 17% week over week at $2,800/FEU, with Asia-Mediterranean rates climbing 8% to $4,000/FEU, Platts data shows. The gains appear to be driven by demand and not carrier capacity management, with a significant increase in deployed capacity on Asia-North Europe and a cut in blank sailings. Data from eeSea, part of rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, shows capacity on Asia-North Europe in May will be up 16% from April at 1.2 million TEUs, with blank sailings down 5%. In June, planned capacity will fall to 1.1 million TEUs while planned blank sailings will be halved. It is a more dramatic picture on the trans-Pacific. Asia-US will see 1.96 million TEUs deployed in May, up 4% from April, with blank sailings falling 36%. Planned capacity in June will increase to 2.1 million TEUs while blank sailings will drop by almost 40%. The demand picture for the rest of the year remains unclear. Mediterranean Shipping Co. CEO Soren Toft told the Journal of Commerce in London last week that consumer behavior in both the US and Europe was difficult to predict in the current global economic climate. <h3>Rising energy prices to dampen demand </h3>The International Monetary Fund has revised its economic growth forecast downward from 3.3% to 2.8% with the expectation that rising energy prices will dampen demand. At the same time, the war in the Middle East is fueling inflation fears, product shortages and aggressive stockpiling by manufacturers worldwide, according to the GEP Global Supply Chain Volatility Index compiled by S&amp;P Global and released May 12. Businesses globally have ramped up safety stockpiling of goods and raw materials at the fastest rate in three years as they seek to secure supply ahead of further price increases and disruption, the GEP survey found. European manufacturers reported the most aggressive inventory building, signaling heightened concern over supply availability and costs. “Even if tensions in the Middle East ease quickly, global supply chains are unlikely to normalize for another six to 12 months,” John Piatek, vice president of consulting at GEP, said in his analysis of the survey results. “What stands out in April’s data is how broadly the disruption is spreading,” he added. “Shortages worsened across every major region, signaling this is no longer an isolated transport shock. Companies worldwide are now scrambling to secure supply and protect themselves against further inflation and disruption.” A softening of Asian exports because of the stockpiling will likely result in oversupplied carriers rapidly scaling up blank sailings to support rate levels. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in March amended their Gemini Cooperation agreement across all global service loops to modify the timing of discussions regarding potential seasonal blank sailings. Under previous terms, the carriers were authorized to blank sailings only during Chinese New Year or Chinese Golden Week, provided such agreement was reached no later than 12 weeks prior to the scheduled date of the sailing. The new agreement allows the carriers to announce blanks six to eight weeks before sailings. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The profitability-sapping effects of vessel overcapacity from an order book closing in on 40% of the in-service fleet were on display in the first quarter when volume gains by some ocean carriers were not enough to prevent a steep drop in earnings. Declining average rates dragged down the first-quarter results of Maersk and HMM , despite solid volume increases; HMM reported a 14% increase in first-quarter volume, while Maersk reported “above market growth” of 9%. And despite stable volumes from other carriers such as Hapag-Lloyd , Ocean Network Express , Evergreen, Yang Ming and OOCL , their revenues were significantly eroded by weaker rates; Hapag even posted a loss in the first quarter. Yet carrier executives insist that the excess supply can be mitigated and the surplus tonnage absorbed — this year at least — by a combination of vessel management, trade imbalances, the ongoing effects of geopolitical disruption, and an increase in scrapping. Some heavy lifting will be required. Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc put the current excess supply in the market at 1 million to 1.5 million TEUs, with the longer routes around southern Africa absorbing another 2 million TEUs. “So, it’s about 3.5 million TEUs overall that is the total capacity overhang to normalized trade routes today,” Clerc said during Maersk’s recent first-quarter earnings call with analysts. But he believes excess capacity can be managed by carriers showing discipline in how they deploy capacity, a rise in scrapping and by a new wave of slow steaming that will be triggered by high energy costs. “The deliveries are okay this year, but they are picking up significantly next year, and that’s going to put further pressure on the overhang,” he added. Despite the significant capacity overhang, Clerc believes high energy costs, driven by the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz amid the ongoing war in the Middle East, will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to an additional 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Swelling order book The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12.3 million TEUs, 37% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Sea-web data shows just over 1 million TEUs of capacity via ships over 10,000 TEUs is scheduled to be delivered this year, contributing to capacity growth of 4% amid market predictions for demand growth of 2% to 3% this year. About 2.3 million TEUs of capacity are due for delivery in 2027 and 3.4 million TEUs in 2028. Rolf Habben Jansen, CEO of Maersk’s Gemini Cooperation partner Hapag-Lloyd, also pointed to vessel management levers such as slow steaming and blank sailings, as well as increased scrapping, to limit the effects of excess tonnage. But he noted that another capacity-absorbing factor was emerging in the form of an imbalance between the dominant trade lanes of head-haul corridors and non-dominant lanes. Habben Jansen said growth on the dominant legs of a trade lane is what drives capacity needs, not the overall market growth, noting that strong growth on dominant trade lanes — 10% in 2024 and 8% in 2025 — was helping to offset the impact of new supply on rate levels. “In 2026, the growth on the dominant legs will be higher than the additional supply that comes into the market, acting as a mitigating factor against overcapacity,” he said during Hapag’s earnings call last week. Supply management to be tested How demand and rates shape up through the second quarter and peak season will put the capacity-mitigating confidence of carrier executives to the test, particularly on the trans-Pacific. US imports from Asia have fallen 4.6% this year through April, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Despite the weak demand, carriers on the trans-Pacific are having some success with rate increases amid an environment of sharply higher fuel costs. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce, believes rates are being supported by blank sailings, smaller vessel deployments and tighter space allocations. Spot rates for Asia to the US West Coast were at $3,200 per FEU as of May 18 — up 84% in two months, according to Platts. East Coast rates were at $4,200/FEU. A series of general rate increases (GRIs) was issued in mid-May, with carriers announcing another set from June 1 as high as $3,000 per FEU, combined with a wave of fuel‑linked surcharge adjustments ranging from $200/FEU to $500/FEU. Asia-Europe volume from Container Trades Statistics is only available for the first quarter but shows a 13% increase year over year, continuing the strong demand recorded last year when the trade lane grew volume by 8%. Rates have been rising; on Asia-North Europe they are up 17% week over week at $2,800/FEU, with Asia-Mediterranean rates climbing 8% to $4,000/FEU, Platts data shows. The gains appear to be driven by demand and not carrier capacity management, with a significant increase in deployed capacity on Asia-North Europe and a cut in blank sailings. Data from eeSea, part of rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, shows capacity on Asia-North Europe in May will be up 16% from April at 1.2 million TEUs, with blank sailings down 5%. In June, planned capacity will fall to 1.1 million TEUs while planned blank sailings will be halved. It is a more dramatic picture on the trans-Pacific. Asia-US will see 1.96 million TEUs deployed in May, up 4% from April, with blank sailings falling 36%. Planned capacity in June will increase to 2.1 million TEUs while blank sailings will drop by almost 40%. The demand picture for the rest of the year remains unclear. Mediterranean Shipping Co. CEO Soren Toft told the Journal of Commerce in London last week that consumer behavior in both the US and Europe was difficult to predict in the current global economic climate. Rising energy prices to dampen demand The International Monetary Fund has revised its economic growth forecast downward from 3.3% to 2.8% with the expectation that rising energy prices will dampen demand. At the same time, the war in the Middle East is fueling inflation fears, product shortages and aggressive stockpiling by manufacturers worldwide, according to the GEP Global Supply Chain Volatility Index compiled by S&P Global and released May 12. Businesses globally have ramped up safety stockpiling of goods and raw materials at the fastest rate in three years as they seek to secure supply ahead of further price increases and disruption, the GEP survey found. European manufacturers reported the most aggressive inventory building, signaling heightened concern over supply availability and costs. “Even if tensions in the Middle East ease quickly, global supply chains are unlikely to normalize for another six to 12 months,” John Piatek, vice president of consulting at GEP, said in his analysis of the survey results. “What stands out in April’s data is how broadly the disruption is spreading,” he added. “Shortages worsened across every major region, signaling this is no longer an isolated transport shock. Companies worldwide are now scrambling to secure supply and protect themselves against further inflation and disruption.” A softening of Asian exports because of the stockpiling will likely result in oversupplied carriers rapidly scaling up blank sailings to support rate levels. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in March amended their Gemini Cooperation agreement across all global service loops to modify the timing of discussions regarding potential seasonal blank sailings. Under previous terms, the carriers were authorized to blank sailings only during Chinese New Year or Chinese Golden Week, provided such agreement was reached no later than 12 weeks prior to the scheduled date of the sailing. The new agreement allows the carriers to announce blanks six to eight weeks before sailings. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Ocean carriers face growing order book nearing 40% of in-service fleet

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The BCO technology provider, in a bid to avoid costly dispute resolution, has identified 20 use cases under which shippers, consignees and carriers can agree to be held responsible for container storage.</div>

The BCO technology provider, in a bid to avoid costly dispute resolution, has identified 20 use cases under which shippers, consignees and carriers can agree to be held responsible for container storage.

<div class="phx-topic">International logistics software vendor BuyCo is proposing that shippers and carriers agree to a standard set of contract terms that would apportion responsibility for the cost of container detention and demurrage. BuyCo’s proposal delineates, for 20 different circumstances that can lead to detention and demurrage, which party is accountable, and thus contractually would absolve the other parties from blame. The goal would be to include the mutually accepted rules in ocean freight contracts so there would be clarity around which party would be responsible for the storage fees and to avoid disputes, which BuyCo notes leads to costly overhead for importers, exporters, and shipping lines. “The idea is that it’s so simple, a kid could understand it,” said BuyCo CEO Carl Lauron said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. “We’re playing together, let’s agree on the rules.” Marseille-based BuyCo provides international transportation management software for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs). Its customers include Goodyear, Hershey, Renault, and TotalEnergies. BuyCo executives formally presented their D&amp;D proposal at the Digital Container Shipping Association’s DCSA+ Day, an event held in Singapore in late April that brought together DCSA’s container line members, its technology and consulting partners, and a group of forwarders and shippers to discuss ways to make the container shipping industry more efficient. DCSA is an organization representing most of the world’s top liner carriers that is driving the adoption of digital standards in the ocean freight industry. <h3>Rules developed with customer feedback </h3>Lauron said BuyCo customers helped it create a list of more than 50 different root causes of detention and demurrage disputes, with the software vendor whittling that down to the 20 most common use cases to make the proposal more digestible. Of those 20, seven would be a shipper’s liability, seven would be a carrier’s fault, and the remaining six would be the consignee’s fault. Examples of a shipper’s responsibility: a lack of export documentation compliance, damaged equipment in a merchant haulage scenario (where the shipper arranges drayage), and a failure to meet vessel cutoff at the origin port. Carriers would agree to be held responsible when storage fees are accrued due to transshipment delays, late or inaccurate communication around vessel cutoffs, or when a container is rolled. Meanwhile, consignees would agree to pay storage fees in situations such as when they asked for a container rerouting, or when warehouse capacity at destination precluded their ability to pick up a container. “This is a common sense approach written on paper, which at the end of the day would be the rules of the game that every player needs,” said Olivier Martinot, global transports and customs leader for Adeo, a major home improvement retailer in Europe and a BuyCo customer. Martinot, though, acknowledged it will be challenging to drive adoption of the rules simply because each major region has its own culture and regulatory environment. “From my French-based shipper window, we would need a significant panel of large, impactful shippers allied if we want to make it happen with carriers on French-based contacts,” he said. “I’m not sure at all we could reach a global agreement, and to me, this is where the major difficulty is.” But Lauron said there was a positive reception to the idea from both shippers and container lines at the April DCSA meeting. BuyCo is in the process of championing the idea to individual carriers to galvanize support for the proposal. <h3>Long-standing problem </h3>The idea of making responsibility for detention and demurrage more concrete has long been an elusive goal. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) in 2023 developed a so-called “shipper bill of rights” that specified 14 things to which a shipper was entitled in its relationship with container lines. Included in that list was pricing transparency and efficiency in claims resolution. Detention and demurrage costs spiraled during the pandemic and have remained higher than before COVID-19, prompting shippers to use an array of technology providers and freight audit companies to automate disputes across thousands of invoices and claw back refunds. BuyCo’s approach has been to look at incentives more holistically, Lauron said, in ways that would motivate both container lines and shippers to be accountable, and to avoid the presumption that carriers are always in the wrong when a storage dispute occurs. “This started with our customers asking us to check on invoicing,” he said. “And the real pain was not freight, but the D&amp;D. Instead of looking at the invoicing, let’s look at the actual D&amp;D that’s being created because if you reduce D&amp;D accrued, you automatically reduce the claims.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

International logistics software vendor BuyCo is proposing that shippers and carriers agree to a standard set of contract terms that would apportion responsibility for the cost of container detention and demurrage. BuyCo’s proposal delineates, for 20 different circumstances that can lead to detention and demurrage, which party is accountable, and thus contractually would absolve the other parties from blame. The goal would be to include the mutually accepted rules in ocean freight contracts so there would be clarity around which party would be responsible for the storage fees and to avoid disputes, which BuyCo notes leads to costly overhead for importers, exporters, and shipping lines. “The idea is that it’s so simple, a kid could understand it,” said BuyCo CEO Carl Lauron said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. “We’re playing together, let’s agree on the rules.” Marseille-based BuyCo provides international transportation management software for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs). Its customers include Goodyear, Hershey, Renault, and TotalEnergies. BuyCo executives formally presented their D&D proposal at the Digital Container Shipping Association’s DCSA+ Day, an event held in Singapore in late April that brought together DCSA’s container line members, its technology and consulting partners, and a group of forwarders and shippers to discuss ways to make the container shipping industry more efficient. DCSA is an organization representing most of the world’s top liner carriers that is driving the adoption of digital standards in the ocean freight industry. Rules developed with customer feedback Lauron said BuyCo customers helped it create a list of more than 50 different root causes of detention and demurrage disputes, with the software vendor whittling that down to the 20 most common use cases to make the proposal more digestible. Of those 20, seven would be a shipper’s liability, seven would be a carrier’s fault, and the remaining six would be the consignee’s fault. Examples of a shipper’s responsibility: a lack of export documentation compliance, damaged equipment in a merchant haulage scenario (where the shipper arranges drayage), and a failure to meet vessel cutoff at the origin port. Carriers would agree to be held responsible when storage fees are accrued due to transshipment delays, late or inaccurate communication around vessel cutoffs, or when a container is rolled. Meanwhile, consignees would agree to pay storage fees in situations such as when they asked for a container rerouting, or when warehouse capacity at destination precluded their ability to pick up a container. “This is a common sense approach written on paper, which at the end of the day would be the rules of the game that every player needs,” said Olivier Martinot, global transports and customs leader for Adeo, a major home improvement retailer in Europe and a BuyCo customer. Martinot, though, acknowledged it will be challenging to drive adoption of the rules simply because each major region has its own culture and regulatory environment. “From my French-based shipper window, we would need a significant panel of large, impactful shippers allied if we want to make it happen with carriers on French-based contacts,” he said. “I’m not sure at all we could reach a global agreement, and to me, this is where the major difficulty is.” But Lauron said there was a positive reception to the idea from both shippers and container lines at the April DCSA meeting. BuyCo is in the process of championing the idea to individual carriers to galvanize support for the proposal. Long-standing problem The idea of making responsibility for detention and demurrage more concrete has long been an elusive goal. The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) in 2023 developed a so-called “shipper bill of rights” that specified 14 things to which a shipper was entitled in its relationship with container lines. Included in that list was pricing transparency and efficiency in claims resolution. Detention and demurrage costs spiraled during the pandemic and have remained higher than before COVID-19, prompting shippers to use an array of technology providers and freight audit companies to automate disputes across thousands of invoices and claw back refunds. BuyCo’s approach has been to look at incentives more holistically, Lauron said, in ways that would motivate both container lines and shippers to be accountable, and to avoid the presumption that carriers are always in the wrong when a storage dispute occurs. “This started with our customers asking us to check on invoicing,” he said. “And the real pain was not freight, but the D&D. Instead of looking at the invoicing, let’s look at the actual D&D that’s being created because if you reduce D&D accrued, you automatically reduce the claims.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Software vendor offers proposal to establish detention, demurrage accountability

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The application of emergency fuel charges amid the war in the Middle East is the latest episode in poorly thought-out ideas and “short-termism” by carriers that has hammered another nail in the coffin of trust between them and BCOs. </div>

The application of emergency fuel charges amid the war in the Middle East is the latest episode in poorly thought-out ideas and “short-termism” by carriers that has hammered another nail in the coffin of trust between them and BCOs.

<div class="phx-topic">Trust, like any other brand, takes a long time to build. It requires patience, competence, consistency, reliability, and the impression (not always reality) of being not too self-serving. On the other side of the equation, trust is fragile and, depending on the action, can erode over time or vanish in a puff of smoke. I will not attempt to speculate on individual carrier and beneficial cargo owner (BCO) relationships as they are both individualistic and often dependent on one-to-one relationships rather than structural business-to-business in the wider sense. And so to describe the state of BCO-carrier relationships broadly, there is a predominance of mistrust on both sides. Part of this is structural and dates back to the early days of container shipping where the rules were unclear and many of the actors came from a bulk shipping background where charter parties were the benchmark of BCO/carrier contractual and relationship behavior. I recall a venerable shipper, steeped in charter party fine details, insisting we had to position refrigerated containers AND a vessel into Rockhampton, Queensland (Australia), as this was a named port in the annual meat shippers’ negotiations with the Japan Shipping conference. Needless to say, we didn’t do so, much to his disgust. And so it continued through the years. Carriers slowly shifting from trying to manage providing a service and making a profit to maximizing profit, while shippers played at relationships, too. BCOs cashed in when markets crashed and tried to limit the damage when markets were high. Meanwhile, carriers abandoned their attempt to provide a service versus profit. Schedule reliability is laughably low by any measure despite the best efforts to constrain supply through blank sailings, abandoning the chassis market, schedule slippages, etc. All make complete commercial and financial sense, but all contribute to erosion of trust. Shippers have not helped this dynamic, either, with poor forecasting, “best estimate” of volumes, etc., giving many a low reliability standing with carriers. <h3>A ‘new low’ after the pandemic </h3>COVID-19 ushered in a new low, with carriers generating extraordinary profits and cash piles enough to placate their long-suffering shareholders, allowing them to engage in seemingly random excursions into tangential asset plays (aircraft, tankers etc.) while retaining enough cash for the inevitable cyclical downturn. The downturn did not arrive, but in its place we found the geopolitical mess of the war that led to the effective closing of the Strait of Hormuz with all its implications for shipping and seafarers. Which leads to the latest significant erosion of trust. While spot rates typically incorporate the bunker adjustment factor (BAF) and other surcharges into an all-in price (quote, not invoice), a BCO has two contract options for a BAF mechanism. They can choose the carrier-published rates (some BCOs have been coerced to use these), or they can use their own formulas. BAF mechanisms are usually set for a quarter with a tolerance for movement above or below a certain percentage. For example, if the BAF moves 2%, this would be considered an insufficient change to warrant the administration required, thus a threshold is typically set at 5%. However, in either case the mechanism has relied on one overriding truth. The calculation is made at an agreed point before the end of the quarter, and the new BAF (if beyond the threshold) is applied for the subsequent quarter. This means that any significant movement up or down within the current quarter will only be recovered in the subsequent quarter. <h3>‘When is a contract not a contract?’ </h3>Certain carriers have insisted that an emergency BAF is warranted. BCOs read the papers too and know there is a major price and supply issue. Many BCOs have asked for detailed clarification in order to get a sense of what is being asked. In some cases, a flat rate across trades was proposed, which makes no sense. Account managers providing the advice were in most cases unable to explain in any detail what was proposed. Another point of contention is the carrier assertion they are burning cash because of fuel while accumulating cash over time to cover at least three years of operations. As one BCO said to me: “When is a contract not a contract?” This latest episode in poorly thought-out ideas and “short-termism” by carriers has hammered another nail in the coffin of trust between them and BCOs. Surely not the final one? John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>. </div>

Trust, like any other brand, takes a long time to build. It requires patience, competence, consistency, reliability, and the impression (not always reality) of being not too self-serving. On the other side of the equation, trust is fragile and, depending on the action, can erode over time or vanish in a puff of smoke. I will not attempt to speculate on individual carrier and beneficial cargo owner (BCO) relationships as they are both individualistic and often dependent on one-to-one relationships rather than structural business-to-business in the wider sense. And so to describe the state of BCO-carrier relationships broadly, there is a predominance of mistrust on both sides. Part of this is structural and dates back to the early days of container shipping where the rules were unclear and many of the actors came from a bulk shipping background where charter parties were the benchmark of BCO/carrier contractual and relationship behavior. I recall a venerable shipper, steeped in charter party fine details, insisting we had to position refrigerated containers AND a vessel into Rockhampton, Queensland (Australia), as this was a named port in the annual meat shippers’ negotiations with the Japan Shipping conference. Needless to say, we didn’t do so, much to his disgust. And so it continued through the years. Carriers slowly shifting from trying to manage providing a service and making a profit to maximizing profit, while shippers played at relationships, too. BCOs cashed in when markets crashed and tried to limit the damage when markets were high. Meanwhile, carriers abandoned their attempt to provide a service versus profit. Schedule reliability is laughably low by any measure despite the best efforts to constrain supply through blank sailings, abandoning the chassis market, schedule slippages, etc. All make complete commercial and financial sense, but all contribute to erosion of trust. Shippers have not helped this dynamic, either, with poor forecasting, “best estimate” of volumes, etc., giving many a low reliability standing with carriers. A ‘new low’ after the pandemic COVID-19 ushered in a new low, with carriers generating extraordinary profits and cash piles enough to placate their long-suffering shareholders, allowing them to engage in seemingly random excursions into tangential asset plays (aircraft, tankers etc.) while retaining enough cash for the inevitable cyclical downturn. The downturn did not arrive, but in its place we found the geopolitical mess of the war that led to the effective closing of the Strait of Hormuz with all its implications for shipping and seafarers. Which leads to the latest significant erosion of trust. While spot rates typically incorporate the bunker adjustment factor (BAF) and other surcharges into an all-in price (quote, not invoice), a BCO has two contract options for a BAF mechanism. They can choose the carrier-published rates (some BCOs have been coerced to use these), or they can use their own formulas. BAF mechanisms are usually set for a quarter with a tolerance for movement above or below a certain percentage. For example, if the BAF moves 2%, this would be considered an insufficient change to warrant the administration required, thus a threshold is typically set at 5%. However, in either case the mechanism has relied on one overriding truth. The calculation is made at an agreed point before the end of the quarter, and the new BAF (if beyond the threshold) is applied for the subsequent quarter. This means that any significant movement up or down within the current quarter will only be recovered in the subsequent quarter. ‘When is a contract not a contract?’ Certain carriers have insisted that an emergency BAF is warranted. BCOs read the papers too and know there is a major price and supply issue. Many BCOs have asked for detailed clarification in order to get a sense of what is being asked. In some cases, a flat rate across trades was proposed, which makes no sense. Account managers providing the advice were in most cases unable to explain in any detail what was proposed. Another point of contention is the carrier assertion they are burning cash because of fuel while accumulating cash over time to cover at least three years of operations. As one BCO said to me: “When is a contract not a contract?” This latest episode in poorly thought-out ideas and “short-termism” by carriers has hammered another nail in the coffin of trust between them and BCOs. Surely not the final one? John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Another nail in the coffin of trust between carriers, clients

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">ASCS debuted last week with great fanfare; now that the dust has settled, the question for shipper traffic and procurement teams is more practical: What do we do about it?</div>

ASCS debuted last week with great fanfare; now that the dust has settled, the question for shipper traffic and procurement teams is more practical: What do we do about it?

<div class="phx-topic">Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/amazons-3pl-foray-marketing-ploy-or-existential-threat-to-3pls-6215791">launched on May 4</a>. By the end of June, it will land on every shipper’s desk as either an inbound sales call or a CFO-mandated cost study. The market reaction was dramatic: UPS down more than 10% on launch day, FedEx down 9%, GXO and Forward Air down double digits. The question for shipper traffic and procurement teams is more practical. What do we do about it? At Maersk, I ran a multi-billion-dollar procurement portfolio. The benchmarking tools we used were built to evaluate rate, service tier, and capacity reliability. None were built to evaluate a trade in which the cost of a service is partial control of our own demand data. ASCS forces that trade. Most procurement organizations do not have a playbook for it. Here is the framework I would run today: <h3>What data does Amazon need, and what data does Amazon retain? </h3>The rate is not the cost. The rate plus the data exposure is the cost. Before any commercial conversation, map exactly what data Amazon ingests across forecasting, transportation, inventory and fulfillment, and what Amazon retains and aggregates outside your account. Patrick Tyler Brown at Raymond James flagged this as the central shipper concern in his post-launch note. The contract language matters more than the rate sheet. <h3>What is the exit cost in 24 months? </h3>Every logistics decision has a switching cost. ASCS’s switching cost is structurally higher than a typical third-party logistics provider (3PL) relationship because the data dependency compounds. Once Amazon’s forecasting models are tuned to your demand pattern, leaving means rebuilding that capability internally or with another partner. If you cannot articulate a clean 24-month exit, you do not have a contract. You have a dependency. <h3>Does ASCS make sense for your network? </h3>Three categories where the answer is yes: long-tail small and medium-sized business customer lanes where current 3PL service is uneven, and volume does not justify direct carrier contracting; regional fulfillment positioning where Amazon’s 200-plus US node count creates a service tier you cannot replicate; and specific intermodal corridors where Amazon’s 24,000 container fleet provides density your current intermodal marketing company (IMC) cannot match. Three categories where the answer is no: lanes where you have enough volume to negotiate directly with the steamship line, the Class I railroad, or the less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier; lanes that touch your most strategic customer relationships; and lanes where your demand data is itself a competitive advantage in your industry. <h3>What is the hybrid model that protects optionality? </h3>The decision is not binary. Most shippers should run a hybrid. The mistake is going all in on rate compression and discovering at the next contract cycle that you no longer have a benchmarking baseline outside the Amazon network. LTL is a useful test case. Amazon Freight already operates inbound LTL into its own fulfillment network and is expanding shipper outreach. FedEx Freight spins off as an independent public company on June 1. Shippers who lock LTL into ASCS without evaluating FDXF will be repricing that decision in 2027. <h3>Is your procurement organization equipped to make this decision? </h3>The honest answer for most teams is no. Procurement organizations were built around request-for-proposal cadence, contract management, cost-per-mode benchmarking, and supplier scorecards. None of those tools price the data-exposure trade. A real ASCS evaluation needs three things most teams do not have: a data governance reviewer with authority to veto data terms, a contract attorney with experience in cloud-style master service agreements rather than transportation contracts, and a scenario modeler who can run the eight-year dependency curve, not just the 12-month rate comparison. Most folks thought USPS had a moat on rural deliveries. Think again. The shippers using 2010 procurement frameworks to evaluate 2026 architecture decisions are about to repeat the mistake. <h3>The bottom line </h3>ASCS is a real product with real network capability. For some lanes and some shippers, it will be the right answer. For others, it will be a strategic mistake dressed up as a cost saving. The difference will not be visible on the rate sheet. It will be visible at the eight-year mark when one set of shippers has built optionality, and another set has built dependency. The CFO is going to ask the question. Be ready with the framework before the question arrives. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals &amp; Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

Amazon Supply Chain Services (ASCS) launched on May 4 . By the end of June, it will land on every shipper’s desk as either an inbound sales call or a CFO-mandated cost study. The market reaction was dramatic: UPS down more than 10% on launch day, FedEx down 9%, GXO and Forward Air down double digits. The question for shipper traffic and procurement teams is more practical. What do we do about it? At Maersk, I ran a multi-billion-dollar procurement portfolio. The benchmarking tools we used were built to evaluate rate, service tier, and capacity reliability. None were built to evaluate a trade in which the cost of a service is partial control of our own demand data. ASCS forces that trade. Most procurement organizations do not have a playbook for it. Here is the framework I would run today: What data does Amazon need, and what data does Amazon retain? The rate is not the cost. The rate plus the data exposure is the cost. Before any commercial conversation, map exactly what data Amazon ingests across forecasting, transportation, inventory and fulfillment, and what Amazon retains and aggregates outside your account. Patrick Tyler Brown at Raymond James flagged this as the central shipper concern in his post-launch note. The contract language matters more than the rate sheet. What is the exit cost in 24 months? Every logistics decision has a switching cost. ASCS’s switching cost is structurally higher than a typical third-party logistics provider (3PL) relationship because the data dependency compounds. Once Amazon’s forecasting models are tuned to your demand pattern, leaving means rebuilding that capability internally or with another partner. If you cannot articulate a clean 24-month exit, you do not have a contract. You have a dependency. Does ASCS make sense for your network? Three categories where the answer is yes: long-tail small and medium-sized business customer lanes where current 3PL service is uneven, and volume does not justify direct carrier contracting; regional fulfillment positioning where Amazon’s 200-plus US node count creates a service tier you cannot replicate; and specific intermodal corridors where Amazon’s 24,000 container fleet provides density your current intermodal marketing company (IMC) cannot match. Three categories where the answer is no: lanes where you have enough volume to negotiate directly with the steamship line, the Class I railroad, or the less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier; lanes that touch your most strategic customer relationships; and lanes where your demand data is itself a competitive advantage in your industry. What is the hybrid model that protects optionality? The decision is not binary. Most shippers should run a hybrid. The mistake is going all in on rate compression and discovering at the next contract cycle that you no longer have a benchmarking baseline outside the Amazon network. LTL is a useful test case. Amazon Freight already operates inbound LTL into its own fulfillment network and is expanding shipper outreach. FedEx Freight spins off as an independent public company on June 1. Shippers who lock LTL into ASCS without evaluating FDXF will be repricing that decision in 2027. Is your procurement organization equipped to make this decision? The honest answer for most teams is no. Procurement organizations were built around request-for-proposal cadence, contract management, cost-per-mode benchmarking, and supplier scorecards. None of those tools price the data-exposure trade. A real ASCS evaluation needs three things most teams do not have: a data governance reviewer with authority to veto data terms, a contract attorney with experience in cloud-style master service agreements rather than transportation contracts, and a scenario modeler who can run the eight-year dependency curve, not just the 12-month rate comparison. Most folks thought USPS had a moat on rural deliveries. Think again. The shippers using 2010 procurement frameworks to evaluate 2026 architecture decisions are about to repeat the mistake. The bottom line ASCS is a real product with real network capability. For some lanes and some shippers, it will be the right answer. For others, it will be a strategic mistake dressed up as a cost saving. The difference will not be visible on the rate sheet. It will be visible at the eight-year mark when one set of shippers has built optionality, and another set has built dependency. The CFO is going to ask the question. Be ready with the framework before the question arrives. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals & Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

Supply chain

A shipper’s decision framework for Amazon Supply Chain Services

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)

Asia to US container volumes (PIERS)

PIERS Total US imports from Asia (Monthly) (year-over-year change) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The issue of carrier terminal control is front and center with the coming sale of Maher given that carriers overall have become aggressive acquirers and developers of terminal capacity globally, including on the US East Coast. </div>

The issue of carrier terminal control is front and center with the coming sale of Maher given that carriers overall have become aggressive acquirers and developers of terminal capacity globally, including on the US East Coast.

<div class="phx-topic">As Maher Terminals, the largest terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, is being prepped for sale with active discussions under way with potential buyers, a possible unfavorable outcome for the port is for all major terminals ending up owned by ocean carriers. The 450-acre Maher facility in New Jersey, at approximately one-third of container capacity and market share within the port, is the last remaining non-carrier-owned terminal following the 2023 acquisition by CMA CGM of previously neutral Global Container Terminals facilities at Bayonne and Howland Hook, other than a small facility in Brooklyn under control of the NYC Economic Development Corp. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6218881_0.1.jpg"></img></div>If Maher were to be sold to a carrier by its owner, Macquarie Asset Management, the result could be several large carriers who don’t own terminals at the port ending up as customers of other carriers. Those carriers and their customers would thus be left at a perpetual disadvantage in terms of berth windows and cargo handling when serving New York-New Jersey. That would make the port less attractive for such carriers versus competitive ports for inland cargo such as Virginia that are operated on a neutral basis. “Maher Terminals has combined an exceptional leadership team with expansive capital investment to create a leading neutral stevedoring operation on the East Coast,” said Ken O’Brien, CEO of Gemini Shippers Group. “It is hard to envision how a purchase of the terminal by one of the liner companies would lead to improved service levels.” The other major terminals partly or fully carrier-owned are APM Terminals, a unit of AP Moller-Maersk; and Port Newark Container Terminal, or PNCT, which is 50% owned by Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), the terminal operating business of Mediterranean Shipping Co. Different outcomes are possible. If Maher were sold to MSC, the world’s largest carrier and an aggressive acquirer of terminal space in the US and globally, it would likely force MSC to sell its PNCT stake due to antitrust concerns over market dominance at the East Coast’s largest port, according to a knowledgeable source. MSC is one of the parties that have expressed interest in Maher, according to a February <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/maritime-giants-target-major-new-york-area-port-terminal-3ba57f47?mod=Searchresults&amp;pos=1&amp;page=1">report</a> in the Wall Street Journal. Such a scenario could leave PNCT in the hands of neutral owners, giving the port a common-user facility. “It is important to the port’s competitiveness to retain a common-user facility,” a source said. <h3>Carriers’ healthy appetite for terminal assets </h3>The issue of carrier terminal control is front and center with the impending sale of Maher given that carriers overall have become aggressive acquirers and developers of terminal capacity globally, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/more-carrier-controlled-terminal-operations-could-be-coming-to-the-east-coast-6207482">including on the US East Coast</a>. For example, if Maher were to fall into the hands of Hapag-Lloyd or Ocean Network Express (ONE), both top 10 carriers that are expanding their terminal portfolios, it could leave the port as essentially a closed shop where non-terminal operating carriers are deprioritized, making the port less competitive overall. The reason is that while carrier-owned terminals often claim to be neutral, in reality they are not. “Within carriers that own terminals, internal debates take place between the port operations team and the liner teams regarding terminals the carrier owns,” said George Goldman, former president of Zim Integrated Shipping Services and CMA CGM in the US. “Third-party terminal revenue is a big deal for the terminal guys, but ultimately decisions pay homage to the mothership and ultimately preference is given to the carrier.” He added: “Independent carriers really have very little leverage so ... I think ultimately it’s a disadvantage for them and the industry.” Such are the implications for non-terminal-owning carriers that — depending on who the buyer is — it could impact alliances and port calls on the US East Coast, said a port expert who asked to remain anonymous. <h3>‘Single-most attractive terminal target in the world’ </h3>The Maher sale, moreover, isn’t just any transaction. It’s the premier terminal property in the heart of the world’s <a href="https://financesonline.com/10-wealthiest-cities-in-the-world-its-not-new-york-or-london-at-the-top/">second-largest</a> metropolitan region by GDP, as well as a dominant player within a strategically located port that over several years has held its own among competitors. The Maher facility is “the single-most attractive terminal target in the world today,” according to the knowledgeable source. The import market share of New York-New Jersey among Northeast ports (including Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Virginia) was 63.1% in 2025 versus 63.6% in 2020, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. A further benefit to NY-NJ stems from long-term growth in East Coast market share as Asia manufacturing gravitates south from China, which favors the westbound route into North America. It has been widely reported that Maher will be put up for sale in the coming months by Macquarie. JP Morgan has been named as the sell-side advisor, according to Infralogic, an infrastructure publication. The bank is incentivized to achieve a price possibly as lofty as $6 billion, said the knowledgeable source. Macquarie in December renewed Maher’s lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for 33 years through 2063, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/macquarie-seals-deal-for-new-maher-lease-at-nynj-through-2063-6137751">agreeing</a> to terms that include responsibility for upkeep of wharves and berths and a commitment to increase capacity in line with demand. The lease renewal was seen as a critical step in Macquarie’s ability to put the terminal up for sale as it removes uncertainty as to what a buyer is committing to. The knowledgeable source said the terminal, which was acquired by Macquarie from Deutsche Bank in 2016, will attract interest from potential buyers including carrier-owned terminal operators, independent operators such as DP World, PSA or Carrix, as well as potentially infrastructure-focused financial players. Yet with indications the port is committed to maintaining a common-user facility within the port, it remains to be seen whether it will intervene to achieve that result given that it has the right to approve the Maher transaction but can’t dictate who the buyer would be. Some port sources speculate that Macquarie would not have renewed the Maher lease without a commitment from the port not to reopen the lease as a condition for approving the sale, which it did to force concessions from CMA CGM regarding the Global terminals deal. A spokesperson for the port of NY-NJ would only say: “We are unable to comment on possible sales or negotiations.” Macquarie could not be reached for comment. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

As Maher Terminals, the largest terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, is being prepped for sale with active discussions under way with potential buyers, a possible unfavorable outcome for the port is for all major terminals ending up owned by ocean carriers. The 450-acre Maher facility in New Jersey, at approximately one-third of container capacity and market share within the port, is the last remaining non-carrier-owned terminal following the 2023 acquisition by CMA CGM of previously neutral Global Container Terminals facilities at Bayonne and Howland Hook, other than a small facility in Brooklyn under control of the NYC Economic Development Corp. If Maher were to be sold to a carrier by its owner, Macquarie Asset Management, the result could be several large carriers who don’t own terminals at the port ending up as customers of other carriers. Those carriers and their customers would thus be left at a perpetual disadvantage in terms of berth windows and cargo handling when serving New York-New Jersey. That would make the port less attractive for such carriers versus competitive ports for inland cargo such as Virginia that are operated on a neutral basis. “Maher Terminals has combined an exceptional leadership team with expansive capital investment to create a leading neutral stevedoring operation on the East Coast,” said Ken O’Brien, CEO of Gemini Shippers Group. “It is hard to envision how a purchase of the terminal by one of the liner companies would lead to improved service levels.” The other major terminals partly or fully carrier-owned are APM Terminals, a unit of AP Moller-Maersk; and Port Newark Container Terminal, or PNCT, which is 50% owned by Terminal Investment Limited (TiL), the terminal operating business of Mediterranean Shipping Co. Different outcomes are possible. If Maher were sold to MSC, the world’s largest carrier and an aggressive acquirer of terminal space in the US and globally, it would likely force MSC to sell its PNCT stake due to antitrust concerns over market dominance at the East Coast’s largest port, according to a knowledgeable source. MSC is one of the parties that have expressed interest in Maher, according to a February report in the Wall Street Journal. Such a scenario could leave PNCT in the hands of neutral owners, giving the port a common-user facility. “It is important to the port’s competitiveness to retain a common-user facility,” a source said. Carriers’ healthy appetite for terminal assets The issue of carrier terminal control is front and center with the impending sale of Maher given that carriers overall have become aggressive acquirers and developers of terminal capacity globally, including on the US East Coast . For example, if Maher were to fall into the hands of Hapag-Lloyd or Ocean Network Express (ONE), both top 10 carriers that are expanding their terminal portfolios, it could leave the port as essentially a closed shop where non-terminal operating carriers are deprioritized, making the port less competitive overall. The reason is that while carrier-owned terminals often claim to be neutral, in reality they are not. “Within carriers that own terminals, internal debates take place between the port operations team and the liner teams regarding terminals the carrier owns,” said George Goldman, former president of Zim Integrated Shipping Services and CMA CGM in the US. “Third-party terminal revenue is a big deal for the terminal guys, but ultimately decisions pay homage to the mothership and ultimately preference is given to the carrier.” He added: “Independent carriers really have very little leverage so ... I think ultimately it’s a disadvantage for them and the industry.” Such are the implications for non-terminal-owning carriers that — depending on who the buyer is — it could impact alliances and port calls on the US East Coast, said a port expert who asked to remain anonymous. ‘Single-most attractive terminal target in the world’ The Maher sale, moreover, isn’t just any transaction. It’s the premier terminal property in the heart of the world’s second-largest metropolitan region by GDP, as well as a dominant player within a strategically located port that over several years has held its own among competitors. The Maher facility is “the single-most attractive terminal target in the world today,” according to the knowledgeable source. The import market share of New York-New Jersey among Northeast ports (including Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Virginia) was 63.1% in 2025 versus 63.6% in 2020, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. A further benefit to NY-NJ stems from long-term growth in East Coast market share as Asia manufacturing gravitates south from China, which favors the westbound route into North America. It has been widely reported that Maher will be put up for sale in the coming months by Macquarie. JP Morgan has been named as the sell-side advisor, according to Infralogic, an infrastructure publication. The bank is incentivized to achieve a price possibly as lofty as $6 billion, said the knowledgeable source. Macquarie in December renewed Maher’s lease with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for 33 years through 2063, agreeing to terms that include responsibility for upkeep of wharves and berths and a commitment to increase capacity in line with demand. The lease renewal was seen as a critical step in Macquarie’s ability to put the terminal up for sale as it removes uncertainty as to what a buyer is committing to. The knowledgeable source said the terminal, which was acquired by Macquarie from Deutsche Bank in 2016, will attract interest from potential buyers including carrier-owned terminal operators, independent operators such as DP World, PSA or Carrix, as well as potentially infrastructure-focused financial players. Yet with indications the port is committed to maintaining a common-user facility within the port, it remains to be seen whether it will intervene to achieve that result given that it has the right to approve the Maher transaction but can’t dictate who the buyer would be. Some port sources speculate that Macquarie would not have renewed the Maher lease without a commitment from the port not to reopen the lease as a condition for approving the sale, which it did to force concessions from CMA CGM regarding the Global terminals deal. A spokesperson for the port of NY-NJ would only say: “We are unable to comment on possible sales or negotiations.” Macquarie could not be reached for comment. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Marine terminals

Impending sale of Maher likely to reshape competitive dynamics at Port of NY-NJ

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker. </div>

The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker.

<div class="phx-topic">The traditional peak shipping season in the US may effectively pass unnoticed this year, a major retail group suggested Friday, citing weak consumer confidence and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “With inflation rising and consumer confidence falling among global economic uncertainty driven by the conflict in Iran, the overall trend of lower imports is expected to continue...,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy, said in a statement accompanying the group’s forecast. The NRF said US imports in May and June will actually be moderately higher than the year-ago figures, but noted that growth is largely artificial because it’s being compared with May and June 2025 when imports fell sharply following the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread tariffs that April. The true import picture will come into focus in the heart of summer, with the NRF’s July forecast of 2.2 million TEUs down almost 8% year over year. And things will weaken progressively from there, despite August being the traditional start of peak shipping season when retailers stock up ahead of the year-end holidays. The NRF projects August imports at 2.19 million TEUs, down 5.5% year over year; and September at 2.08 million TEUs, 1.3% below the year prior. The fact that September — typically the heart of peak season — is forecast to be one of the weaker import months of 2026 is especially telling. “Containerized imports in the first quarter were down year over year, and forward demand is weakening,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the statement. “<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/potential-new-us-tariffs-cloud-sourcing-strategies-peak-season-demand-6187613">Stalling restocking efforts</a> and rising geopolitical tensions are increasingly clouding the outlook.” This year would be the second in a row without the typical August through October peak season, following last year’s tariff-linked disruptions. “It’s not like we have a traditional peak season anymore,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at the forwarder MTS Logistics. “There may be a couple months peak, year over year, but at the end of the day, the expectations are not that great right now from our customers and from what I’m hearing from industry and from other companies too.” Encouragingly, booking demand is increasing according to an index that has shown sluggish China import ordering since January. The index, based on data from customers of maritime intelligence provider Vizion, hit its 2026 high of 110 in the week ended April 23, the most recent data available, after moving into positive territory earlier in April. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9c729d7f-c13b-49a7-a0dd-b8aeb67b80c2"></dynamic-object></div><h3>Consumer confidence at new low </h3>Meanwhile, fresh consumer indicators were grim. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, out Friday, fell to a new record low of 48.2, down from 49.8 in April. “About one-third of consumers [surveyed] spontaneously mentioned gasoline prices and about 30% mentioned tariffs. Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump,” Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said in a statement. “Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall,” Hsu added. US retail sales in March, the most recent data available, increased 1.7% month over month to $752.1 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, driven mainly by soaring gasoline prices, which do not contribute to retail merchandise imports. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b0bc7107-6699-4b28-9759-684b190b845a"></dynamic-object></div>Container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific are nevertheless deploying or planning to deploy progressively more capacity in May through July than they did a year ago. According to ocean freight visibility provider eeSea, carriers are deploying almost 2 million TEUs in May, 2.13 million TEUs in June and just under 2.2 million TEUs in July. That’s up from 1.6 million TEUs, 1.98 million TEUs, and 2 million TEUs, respectively, in May–July 2025. Carriers are also blanking less capacity, according to eeSea: 207,797 TEUs in May, 117,403 TEUs in June, and 50,969 TEUs in July. That compares with 472,948 TEUs, 249,745 TEUs, and 239,573 TEUs, respectively, in the same period last year. The GPT forecasts imports at 13 US ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York/New Jersey, Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville and Houston. Contact Kevin Saville at <a href="mailto:kevin.saville2@spglobal.com">kevin.saville2@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The traditional peak shipping season in the US may effectively pass unnoticed this year, a major retail group suggested Friday, citing weak consumer confidence and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “With inflation rising and consumer confidence falling among global economic uncertainty driven by the conflict in Iran, the overall trend of lower imports is expected to continue...,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy, said in a statement accompanying the group’s forecast. The NRF said US imports in May and June will actually be moderately higher than the year-ago figures, but noted that growth is largely artificial because it’s being compared with May and June 2025 when imports fell sharply following the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread tariffs that April. The true import picture will come into focus in the heart of summer, with the NRF’s July forecast of 2.2 million TEUs down almost 8% year over year. And things will weaken progressively from there, despite August being the traditional start of peak shipping season when retailers stock up ahead of the year-end holidays. The NRF projects August imports at 2.19 million TEUs, down 5.5% year over year; and September at 2.08 million TEUs, 1.3% below the year prior. The fact that September — typically the heart of peak season — is forecast to be one of the weaker import months of 2026 is especially telling. “Containerized imports in the first quarter were down year over year, and forward demand is weakening,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the statement. “ Stalling restocking efforts and rising geopolitical tensions are increasingly clouding the outlook.” This year would be the second in a row without the typical August through October peak season, following last year’s tariff-linked disruptions. “It’s not like we have a traditional peak season anymore,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at the forwarder MTS Logistics. “There may be a couple months peak, year over year, but at the end of the day, the expectations are not that great right now from our customers and from what I’m hearing from industry and from other companies too.” Encouragingly, booking demand is increasing according to an index that has shown sluggish China import ordering since January. The index, based on data from customers of maritime intelligence provider Vizion, hit its 2026 high of 110 in the week ended April 23, the most recent data available, after moving into positive territory earlier in April. Consumer confidence at new low Meanwhile, fresh consumer indicators were grim. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, out Friday, fell to a new record low of 48.2, down from 49.8 in April. “About one-third of consumers [surveyed] spontaneously mentioned gasoline prices and about 30% mentioned tariffs. Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump,” Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said in a statement. “Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall,” Hsu added. US retail sales in March, the most recent data available, increased 1.7% month over month to $752.1 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, driven mainly by soaring gasoline prices, which do not contribute to retail merchandise imports. Container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific are nevertheless deploying or planning to deploy progressively more capacity in May through July than they did a year ago. According to ocean freight visibility provider eeSea, carriers are deploying almost 2 million TEUs in May, 2.13 million TEUs in June and just under 2.2 million TEUs in July. That’s up from 1.6 million TEUs, 1.98 million TEUs, and 2 million TEUs, respectively, in May–July 2025. Carriers are also blanking less capacity, according to eeSea: 207,797 TEUs in May, 117,403 TEUs in June, and 50,969 TEUs in July. That compares with 472,948 TEUs, 249,745 TEUs, and 239,573 TEUs, respectively, in the same period last year. The GPT forecasts imports at 13 US ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York/New Jersey, Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville and Houston. Contact Kevin Saville at kevin.saville2@spglobal.com . Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With demand on the corridor continuing to outstrip available capacity constrained by the Middle East war, any resumption of hostilities would keep upward pressure on rates. </div>

With demand on the corridor continuing to outstrip available capacity constrained by the Middle East war, any resumption of hostilities would keep upward pressure on rates.

<div class="phx-topic">Peace talks between the US and Iran deteriorated this week, keeping air freight rates elevated and potentially stalling a recovery of flight operations into Persian Gulf airports that before the war handled a third of Asia-Europe air cargo traffic. Spot rates from China to Europe hit $5.76 per kilogram in the first week of May, the highest this year, before easing slightly to $5.42/kg on May 11, according to the Baltic Air Index (BAI). Airport hubs in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar steadily scaled up flight frequencies since the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire in April, with Dubai-based Emirates announcing last week that 96% of its global network has now been restored. But in a May market report, BAI said a resumption of attacks would pause the recovery. With demand for air cargo on the Asia-Europe corridor continuing to outstrip available capacity constrained by the war, an escalation of hostilities would also keep upward pressure on rates. “Air space across parts of the Gulf remains restricted or closed ... the biggest impact is being felt by Asia-Europe traffic,” BAI said. “In a system with little spare capacity, even modest disruptions now move rates quickly. Even when aircraft are available, longer flight times and operational instability reduce how much cargo they can carry. The result is simple: There is less usable capacity in the system.” The Freightos Air Index also reflected a strengthening of rates. Spot rates from China to Europe on May 10 were up 57% since late February at $5.16/kg, almost 50% higher year over year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1f8878b6-9e77-46fc-bdf5-c1982da8007e"></dynamic-object></div>Air freight analyst Rotate said in a first quarter report that over the last 26 months, air cargo demand grew 10% against 6% capacity growth, noting that “the gap was adding pressure across the market even before the conflict in the Middle East exacerbated matters.” An estimated 30% of Asia-Europe traffic was routed via the Middle East before the war began on Feb. 28. More than 520,000 tons of international cargo capacity was lost in the first two weeks of March when air space across the Persian Gulf was closed, according to Rotate. Air freight capacity is now back to about 30% of pre-war levels. <h3>No sudden demand spike </h3>While cargo fills aircraft out of Asia, forwarders note that it is more a reflection of the disruption to the Asia-Europe network rather than a sudden demand spike. “Air freight demand continues to grow, but not at a super high pace for now and is following GDP expectations of plus 3%,” Frank Sobotka, CEO for air and sea at DSV, told analysts Tuesday at the forwarder’s capital markets day. “The drivers are predominantly high-tech cloud computing and still e-commerce from Asia that has shifted from the trans-Pacific corridor following the end of de minimis in the US into the European markets,” he said. DSV reported a 55% increase in first-quarter air cargo volume, boosted by the integration of DB Schenker traffic. But compared with the fourth quarter of 2025, seasonality and capacity constraints in the Middle East dragged sequential quarterly volume down 12%. The Denmark-based forwarder is optimistic about volume growth in the second quarter that it believes will be generated by the summer tender season and further integration of Schenker business. Kuehne + Nagel reported flat volume growth in the first quarter, a slowdown from the 7% growth seen in the last quarter of 2025. The forwarder attributed the slowdown to reduced demand for perishables and e-commerce volumes carried by its Apex subsidiary in Asia, but expects volume in air freight to be “slightly up” in the second quarter compared with the previous year. One air freight operator seeing robust demand is Maersk Air Cargo. Its air freight volume increased 20% in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, which CEO Vincent Clerc attributed to “operational improvements, enhanced productivity and more effective revenue management.” Clerc told analysts during an earnings call last week he is confident the carrier will continue to grow air cargo volume. He also said that air freight, together with ground freight and contract logistics, “will remain a key area for further productivity improvements and profitability gains throughout the year.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Peace talks between the US and Iran deteriorated this week, keeping air freight rates elevated and potentially stalling a recovery of flight operations into Persian Gulf airports that before the war handled a third of Asia-Europe air cargo traffic. Spot rates from China to Europe hit $5.76 per kilogram in the first week of May, the highest this year, before easing slightly to $5.42/kg on May 11, according to the Baltic Air Index (BAI). Airport hubs in the United Arab Emirates and Qatar steadily scaled up flight frequencies since the US and Iran agreed to a ceasefire in April, with Dubai-based Emirates announcing last week that 96% of its global network has now been restored. But in a May market report, BAI said a resumption of attacks would pause the recovery. With demand for air cargo on the Asia-Europe corridor continuing to outstrip available capacity constrained by the war, an escalation of hostilities would also keep upward pressure on rates. “Air space across parts of the Gulf remains restricted or closed ... the biggest impact is being felt by Asia-Europe traffic,” BAI said. “In a system with little spare capacity, even modest disruptions now move rates quickly. Even when aircraft are available, longer flight times and operational instability reduce how much cargo they can carry. The result is simple: There is less usable capacity in the system.” The Freightos Air Index also reflected a strengthening of rates. Spot rates from China to Europe on May 10 were up 57% since late February at $5.16/kg, almost 50% higher year over year. Air freight analyst Rotate said in a first quarter report that over the last 26 months, air cargo demand grew 10% against 6% capacity growth, noting that “the gap was adding pressure across the market even before the conflict in the Middle East exacerbated matters.” An estimated 30% of Asia-Europe traffic was routed via the Middle East before the war began on Feb. 28. More than 520,000 tons of international cargo capacity was lost in the first two weeks of March when air space across the Persian Gulf was closed, according to Rotate. Air freight capacity is now back to about 30% of pre-war levels. No sudden demand spike While cargo fills aircraft out of Asia, forwarders note that it is more a reflection of the disruption to the Asia-Europe network rather than a sudden demand spike. “Air freight demand continues to grow, but not at a super high pace for now and is following GDP expectations of plus 3%,” Frank Sobotka, CEO for air and sea at DSV, told analysts Tuesday at the forwarder’s capital markets day. “The drivers are predominantly high-tech cloud computing and still e-commerce from Asia that has shifted from the trans-Pacific corridor following the end of de minimis in the US into the European markets,” he said. DSV reported a 55% increase in first-quarter air cargo volume, boosted by the integration of DB Schenker traffic. But compared with the fourth quarter of 2025, seasonality and capacity constraints in the Middle East dragged sequential quarterly volume down 12%. The Denmark-based forwarder is optimistic about volume growth in the second quarter that it believes will be generated by the summer tender season and further integration of Schenker business. Kuehne + Nagel reported flat volume growth in the first quarter, a slowdown from the 7% growth seen in the last quarter of 2025. The forwarder attributed the slowdown to reduced demand for perishables and e-commerce volumes carried by its Apex subsidiary in Asia, but expects volume in air freight to be “slightly up” in the second quarter compared with the previous year. One air freight operator seeing robust demand is Maersk Air Cargo. Its air freight volume increased 20% in the first quarter compared with the same period last year, which CEO Vincent Clerc attributed to “operational improvements, enhanced productivity and more effective revenue management.” Clerc told analysts during an earnings call last week he is confident the carrier will continue to grow air cargo volume. He also said that air freight, together with ground freight and contract logistics, “will remain a key area for further productivity improvements and profitability gains throughout the year.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

Asia-Europe air cargo rates remain elevated as Gulf tensions escalate

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Subscribe Today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Subscribe and Save: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carrier sources have reported an average berthing delay of two days for regular services and up to five days for ad-hoc vessel calls at both ports, with the problems driven by inadequate drayage capacity.</div>

Carrier sources have reported an average berthing delay of two days for regular services and up to five days for ad-hoc vessel calls at both ports, with the problems driven by inadequate drayage capacity.

<div class="phx-topic">Supply chain stakeholders at India’s Nhava Sheva and Mundra ports have been struggling to deploy adequate drayage capacity to keep export/import cargo flowing in recent weeks, leaving ocean carriers grappling with multiple operational challenges. Sources say inter-terminal container transfers linked to transshipment activity have also been affected. The inland cutbacks are primarily due to an unusual shortage of truck drivers after a large number of domestic migrant workers returned to their hometowns for a variety of reasons. Labor availability typically drops every year during the April–June summer holiday period, but a crunch of this scale was unexpected, port sources say. Carrier sources have reported an average berthing delay of two days for regular/window services and up to five days for ad-hoc vessel calls at Nhava Sheva and Mundra. Mega-liners with dedicated terminal operations are able to manage vessel turnarounds better, however. Late vessel arrivals from previous ports of call are adding to the delays, a bigger concern for Mundra given the pattern of Indian service rotations. To relieve the heightened berth pressure, the busier terminals at Adani Ports’ Mundra are now turning away ad-hoc callers, sources said. “There has been an acute shortage of drivers, coupled with disruptions at the port, due to which we anticipate that first- and last-mile movement of containers may get impacted,” inland service provider Adani Logistics told customers in an advisory. “We strongly recommend engaging with your respective shipping lines regarding any financial implications that may arise ... which may be due to reasons beyond our control...” On-dock yards in Nhava Sheva and Mundra are overflowing with containers, triggering abrupt gate closings by terminals for cargo intake into the wharf, a major concern for carriers trying to push westbound cargo lifts. “The window to gate in exports is short and constantly changing,” said an executive at a leading European carrier who didn’t want to be identified. “That also means shippers have to run around quickly to organize a container trailer, often unable to find one in the present situation.” <h3>Container ‘no-shows’ also a problem </h3>Sunil Vaswani, executive director of India’s Container Shipping Lines Association, acknowledged that deployed trucking capacity remains a challenge. “The evacuation of import containers out of the terminals at Nhava Sheva still remains slow, which in turn impacts vessel productivity and berthing windows,” Vaswani said. “At Mundra, the import inventory situation is not as critical as at Nhava Sheva because about half of the boxes [there] move by rail.” Carriers are also said to be seeing a higher number of container “no-shows” because of the drayage disruption. Booked containers failing to turn up for loading generally run a penalty risk for shippers. Additionally, the slowdown in inter-terminal activity is weighing on the pace of evacuating Middle East-linked transshipment volumes currently held at Indian docks. As container dwells climb and service reliability deteriorates, freight depot owners and customs brokers are seeking safeguards for potential liability consequences. “Given the exceptional and unforeseen nature of the current situation, it may be treated as force majeure,” a trade notice from the Container Freight Stations Association of India said. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Supply chain stakeholders at India’s Nhava Sheva and Mundra ports have been struggling to deploy adequate drayage capacity to keep export/import cargo flowing in recent weeks, leaving ocean carriers grappling with multiple operational challenges. Sources say inter-terminal container transfers linked to transshipment activity have also been affected. The inland cutbacks are primarily due to an unusual shortage of truck drivers after a large number of domestic migrant workers returned to their hometowns for a variety of reasons. Labor availability typically drops every year during the April–June summer holiday period, but a crunch of this scale was unexpected, port sources say. Carrier sources have reported an average berthing delay of two days for regular/window services and up to five days for ad-hoc vessel calls at Nhava Sheva and Mundra. Mega-liners with dedicated terminal operations are able to manage vessel turnarounds better, however. Late vessel arrivals from previous ports of call are adding to the delays, a bigger concern for Mundra given the pattern of Indian service rotations. To relieve the heightened berth pressure, the busier terminals at Adani Ports’ Mundra are now turning away ad-hoc callers, sources said. “There has been an acute shortage of drivers, coupled with disruptions at the port, due to which we anticipate that first- and last-mile movement of containers may get impacted,” inland service provider Adani Logistics told customers in an advisory. “We strongly recommend engaging with your respective shipping lines regarding any financial implications that may arise ... which may be due to reasons beyond our control...” On-dock yards in Nhava Sheva and Mundra are overflowing with containers, triggering abrupt gate closings by terminals for cargo intake into the wharf, a major concern for carriers trying to push westbound cargo lifts. “The window to gate in exports is short and constantly changing,” said an executive at a leading European carrier who didn’t want to be identified. “That also means shippers have to run around quickly to organize a container trailer, often unable to find one in the present situation.” Container ‘no-shows’ also a problem Sunil Vaswani, executive director of India’s Container Shipping Lines Association, acknowledged that deployed trucking capacity remains a challenge. “The evacuation of import containers out of the terminals at Nhava Sheva still remains slow, which in turn impacts vessel productivity and berthing windows,” Vaswani said. “At Mundra, the import inventory situation is not as critical as at Nhava Sheva because about half of the boxes [there] move by rail.” Carriers are also said to be seeing a higher number of container “no-shows” because of the drayage disruption. Booked containers failing to turn up for loading generally run a penalty risk for shippers. Additionally, the slowdown in inter-terminal activity is weighing on the pace of evacuating Middle East-linked transshipment volumes currently held at Indian docks. As container dwells climb and service reliability deteriorates, freight depot owners and customs brokers are seeking safeguards for potential liability consequences. “Given the exceptional and unforeseen nature of the current situation, it may be treated as force majeure,” a trade notice from the Container Freight Stations Association of India said. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Trucking News

Drayage

International ports

Trucking labor

Rising container dwells hobble vessel flows at India’s Nhava Sheva, Mundra ports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The unanimous ruling in a case involving C.H. Robinson adds a new layer of responsibility for brokers to consider the safety history of the motor carriers they hire to haul loads.</div>

The unanimous ruling in a case involving C.H. Robinson adds a new layer of responsibility for brokers to consider the safety history of the motor carriers they hire to haul loads.

<div class="phx-topic">Federal law does not automatically shield freight brokers from lawsuits alleging they hired unsafe carriers involved in accidents, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday, a decision likely to reshape how shippers and third-party logistics providers assess carrier risk. The unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II does not make brokers liable every time a truck crashes. But it removes a major legal shield the brokerage industry has relied on for years. The case involved a December 2017 crash in Illinois involving a Caribe Transport II truck that struck a vehicle parked on the side of the road. The accident injured Shawn Montgomery, who was forced to have one of his legs amputated. C.H. Robinson brokered the freight to Caribe. Robinson argued that brokers arrange transportation but do not own trucks, maintain equipment, hire drivers, or operate vehicles. Because selecting a carrier is a brokerage service, the company argued that negligent hiring claims against brokers should be preempted by federal law. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, rejected that argument, allowing Montgomery’s lawsuit against Caribe and Robinson to proceed. “Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim thus falls within the FAAAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s] safety exception, which saves it from preemption,” Barrett wrote. “The safety exception saves only a subset of preempted claims: those involving regulations concerning motor vehicle safety. State laws related to motor carrier prices, routes, and services that have no relationship to safety remain preempted [by federal law].” The case is centered on the FAAAA, a federal law that broadly preempts state regulation of freight rates, routes and services. The question before the court was whether that preemption also blocks state law negligent hiring claims against brokers, or whether those claims survive under the law’s safety exception. Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson, claiming the broker negligently hired Caribe, which had a “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and several violations involving driver qualification, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, and crash rates. Lower courts sided with Robinson, stating that FAAAA blocked the claim because the law preempts state rules related to freight rates, routes and services. But the Supreme Court ruling Thursday reversed that, deciding that a broker does not have to own, drive, or repair trucks for its carrier-selection decision to involve highway safety. “Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore ‘concerns’ motor vehicles — most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods,” Barrett wrote. “So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception.” C.H. Robinson said it was “disappointed with the outcome [but] respects the court’s ruling.” “While we are disappointed in the court’s decision, we will continue to operate responsibly, support stronger federal enforcement, and work constructively with regulators, carriers, and customers to strengthen the national safety system and support safe, reliable transportation across the country,” the company said in a statement. The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) said it was “deeply disappointed with the decision.” “...The law and legal precedent for decades has given the federal government, not states, the responsibility for setting safety standards for motor carriers,” TIA said in a statement. “To date, carriers, not brokers, have been responsible for complying with these standards.” <h3>Brokers can’t fall back on FMCSA registration </h3>Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito said the case was a close one, but they concurred with the unanimous opinion. Kavanaugh and Alito pointed out that motor carriers are already open to lawsuits for injuries on a state level, and rejected the idea that FMCSA registration alone ends the safety conversation for brokers. “Given that Congress in the FAA Authorization Act sought economic deregulation — not safety deregulation — it is hard to read the statute as written and conclude that Congress subtly sliced and diced state tort law so that trucking companies would be subject to state tort suits for accidents, but brokers would operate free of any such tort liability,” they wrote. The ruling does not impose a new checklist or instruct brokers on how to vet carriers. But it enforces an important standard of reasonable care when deciding whether a broker was negligent in hiring. For a small carrier with clean authority and no visible problems, reasonable care may be simple. For a carrier with a conditional safety rating, a poor crash record, or repeated serious violations, reasonable care may now mean more than what the brokerage industry has historically been accustomed to. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:Ari.Ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Federal law does not automatically shield freight brokers from lawsuits alleging they hired unsafe carriers involved in accidents, the US Supreme Court ruled Thursday, a decision likely to reshape how shippers and third-party logistics providers assess carrier risk. The unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II does not make brokers liable every time a truck crashes. But it removes a major legal shield the brokerage industry has relied on for years. The case involved a December 2017 crash in Illinois involving a Caribe Transport II truck that struck a vehicle parked on the side of the road. The accident injured Shawn Montgomery, who was forced to have one of his legs amputated. C.H. Robinson brokered the freight to Caribe. Robinson argued that brokers arrange transportation but do not own trucks, maintain equipment, hire drivers, or operate vehicles. Because selecting a carrier is a brokerage service, the company argued that negligent hiring claims against brokers should be preempted by federal law. But Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for the court, rejected that argument, allowing Montgomery’s lawsuit against Caribe and Robinson to proceed. “Montgomery’s negligent hiring claim thus falls within the FAAAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act’s] safety exception, which saves it from preemption,” Barrett wrote. “The safety exception saves only a subset of preempted claims: those involving regulations concerning motor vehicle safety. State laws related to motor carrier prices, routes, and services that have no relationship to safety remain preempted [by federal law].” The case is centered on the FAAAA, a federal law that broadly preempts state regulation of freight rates, routes and services. The question before the court was whether that preemption also blocks state law negligent hiring claims against brokers, or whether those claims survive under the law’s safety exception. Montgomery sued C.H. Robinson, claiming the broker negligently hired Caribe, which had a “conditional” safety rating from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and several violations involving driver qualification, hours of service, vehicle maintenance, and crash rates. Lower courts sided with Robinson, stating that FAAAA blocked the claim because the law preempts state rules related to freight rates, routes and services. But the Supreme Court ruling Thursday reversed that, deciding that a broker does not have to own, drive, or repair trucks for its carrier-selection decision to involve highway safety. “Requiring C.H. Robinson to exercise ordinary care in selecting a carrier therefore ‘concerns’ motor vehicles — most obviously, the trucks that will transport the goods,” Barrett wrote. “So, Montgomery’s negligent-hiring claim falls within the FAAAA’s safety exception.” C.H. Robinson said it was “disappointed with the outcome [but] respects the court’s ruling.” “While we are disappointed in the court’s decision, we will continue to operate responsibly, support stronger federal enforcement, and work constructively with regulators, carriers, and customers to strengthen the national safety system and support safe, reliable transportation across the country,” the company said in a statement. The Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA) said it was “deeply disappointed with the decision.” “...The law and legal precedent for decades has given the federal government, not states, the responsibility for setting safety standards for motor carriers,” TIA said in a statement. “To date, carriers, not brokers, have been responsible for complying with these standards.” Brokers can’t fall back on FMCSA registration Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Samuel Alito said the case was a close one, but they concurred with the unanimous opinion. Kavanaugh and Alito pointed out that motor carriers are already open to lawsuits for injuries on a state level, and rejected the idea that FMCSA registration alone ends the safety conversation for brokers. “Given that Congress in the FAA Authorization Act sought economic deregulation — not safety deregulation — it is hard to read the statute as written and conclude that Congress subtly sliced and diced state tort law so that trucking companies would be subject to state tort suits for accidents, but brokers would operate free of any such tort liability,” they wrote. The ruling does not impose a new checklist or instruct brokers on how to vet carriers. But it enforces an important standard of reasonable care when deciding whether a broker was negligent in hiring. For a small carrier with clean authority and no visible problems, reasonable care may be simple. For a carrier with a conditional safety rating, a poor crash record, or repeated serious violations, reasonable care may now mean more than what the brokerage industry has historically been accustomed to. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Truck brokers

Supreme Court ruling strips broker protection linked to carrier safety

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE and Sohar in Oman had kept carriers restricted to imports since the war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. </div>

Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the UAE and Sohar in Oman had kept carriers restricted to imports since the war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints.

<div class="phx-topic">Terminals at alternative ports of call in the Persian Gulf have reopened gates to outbound freight flows, albeit slowly, market sources say. The ports — Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Sohar in Oman — had kept container carriers restricted to import discharges since the Middle East war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. The ports have been the supply chain lifeline for Middle East-bound shipments since the Middle East war erupted Feb. 28. But contingency port operations effectively meant a “single leg” cargo opportunity for vessel operators as they were not allowed to pick up boxes on the backhaul in order to avoid longer berth stays. Multiple Dubai-based freight forwarder executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce confirmed that a few mainliners, notably CMA CGM, and other major feeder operators, usually backed by non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), are now moving Middle East-origin containers into India. “Although uneven and dependent on the space situation, export gate-ins have resumed,” said a source who didn’t want to be identified. CMA CGM has regular weekly sailings connecting three western Indian ports — Hazira, Mundra and Nhava Sheva — to Fujairah and Sohar under its “BIGEX” network. The French carrier is also understood to have evacuated most Middle East-bound containers rerouted to Nhava Sheva, including accumulated hazardous/dangerous cargo boxes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rerouted-middle-east-hazmat-containers-spark-safety-concerns-at-indian-ports-6208692">that had sparked safety concerns for the port authority</a>. Middle East ports traditionally play a major role for carriers in repositioning empty containers to demand locations, including India. With the renewed operational flexibility, CMA CGM has been able to relocate accumulated empties via Fujairah into Nhava Sheva to replenish its tightening inventory capacity in India. While the Middle East disruption strained carriers’ inventory cycles, weaker export demand from India prevented any sort of industrywide equipment imbalance issues, local sources said. <h3>CMA CGM, AD Ports ink logistics deal </h3>Meanwhile, CMA CGM has reached an agreement with AD Ports Group to work together on intermodal logistics solutions across the UAE to neighboring countries. The move comes as demand for multimodal/land bridge alternatives continues to grow in the region. “The collaboration will explore opportunities to strengthen cargo flows across the UAE and regional markets, including the northern Emirates, whilst extending trade corridor optionality through rail-linked inland connectivity to the borders of ... Oman and ... Saudi Arabia,” the partners said in a joint statement. Through its CMA Terminals subsidiary, the Marseille-based carrier already has a terminal joint venture with AD Ports at Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Terminals at alternative ports of call in the Persian Gulf have reopened gates to outbound freight flows, albeit slowly, market sources say. The ports — Khor Fakkan and Fujairah in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Sohar in Oman — had kept container carriers restricted to import discharges since the Middle East war began due to severe yard space and cargo evacuation constraints. The ports have been the supply chain lifeline for Middle East-bound shipments since the Middle East war erupted Feb. 28. But contingency port operations effectively meant a “single leg” cargo opportunity for vessel operators as they were not allowed to pick up boxes on the backhaul in order to avoid longer berth stays. Multiple Dubai-based freight forwarder executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce confirmed that a few mainliners, notably CMA CGM, and other major feeder operators, usually backed by non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), are now moving Middle East-origin containers into India. “Although uneven and dependent on the space situation, export gate-ins have resumed,” said a source who didn’t want to be identified. CMA CGM has regular weekly sailings connecting three western Indian ports — Hazira, Mundra and Nhava Sheva — to Fujairah and Sohar under its “BIGEX” network. The French carrier is also understood to have evacuated most Middle East-bound containers rerouted to Nhava Sheva, including accumulated hazardous/dangerous cargo boxes that had sparked safety concerns for the port authority . Middle East ports traditionally play a major role for carriers in repositioning empty containers to demand locations, including India. With the renewed operational flexibility, CMA CGM has been able to relocate accumulated empties via Fujairah into Nhava Sheva to replenish its tightening inventory capacity in India. While the Middle East disruption strained carriers’ inventory cycles, weaker export demand from India prevented any sort of industrywide equipment imbalance issues, local sources said. CMA CGM, AD Ports ink logistics deal Meanwhile, CMA CGM has reached an agreement with AD Ports Group to work together on intermodal logistics solutions across the UAE to neighboring countries. The move comes as demand for multimodal/land bridge alternatives continues to grow in the region. “The collaboration will explore opportunities to strengthen cargo flows across the UAE and regional markets, including the northern Emirates, whilst extending trade corridor optionality through rail-linked inland connectivity to the borders of ... Oman and ... Saudi Arabia,” the partners said in a joint statement. Through its CMA Terminals subsidiary, the Marseille-based carrier already has a terminal joint venture with AD Ports at Khalifa Port in Abu Dhabi. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Disrupted Middle East-India shipments restart as choked supply chains ease

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Weather-related port congestion in January and February caused higher terminal storage costs while the war in the Middle East raised operating expenses late in the quarter.</div>

Weather-related port congestion in January and February caused higher terminal storage costs while the war in the Middle East raised operating expenses late in the quarter.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd recorded a $300 million loss in the first quarter as severe winter weather on both sides of the Atlantic, rising energy costs and sharply declining rates dragged down the carrier’s earnings. It was “an unsatisfactory start to the year,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters during a results briefing Wednesday. “We had adverse weather conditions in north and south Europe in January and February, and similar conditions on the East Coast of the US, and we are heavily exposed to those markets,” he said. Although bunker prices fell in the first quarter because of the time lag between purchase and consumption, higher terminal storage costs stacked up from weather-related port congestion in January and February, with Middle East-related disruptions adding to March operating costs. Hapag-Lloyd’s first-quarter volume was down 0.7% at 3.2 million TEUs, while average freight rates fell 10% year over year to $1,330 per TEU. The weak performance in the liner shipping segment dragged Hapag’s revenue down 7.5% to $4.9 billion. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 54% to $500 million and earnings before interest and taxes were down 60% at $200 million. The $300 million net loss was down from a $500 million profit in the first quarter of 2025. War in the Middle East drove up energy prices from the end of February. Habben Jansen said the carrier was bunkering 100,000 tons of fuel a week, which was adding $50 million to $60 million to its weekly bills. “The situation in the Middle East caused significant extra cost from March, which we hope to recover through surcharges in the second quarter,” the CEO said. “A significant increase in bunker cost is expected in Q2 which will be covered by our emergency fuel surcharge and the regular marine fuel recovery mechanism.” <h3>Recovering rising bunker costs </h3>Half of the carrier’s volume is under contract where surcharges enable rising fuel costs to be fully recovered. On the spot market, Habben Jansen said rising rates through the peak season will factor in the bunker costs. “Looking at the sheer magnitude of the additional costs that we face, I think in most cases we have sensible discussions with customers, and that can be that we either come up with an emergency additional charge, or in some cases we move from a quarterly adjustment in the bunker formula to a monthly adjustment,” he said. While volume was flat compared with the first quarter of last year, the carrier was seeing solid market demand into May and beyond, and Habben Jansen said the industry was on track for a “decent” peak season. “We don’t see any real softening in demand for cargo at this point,” he said. “When we look at forward bookings, when we look at futures markets, when we talk to customers, there is an expectation that we will have a pretty decent peak season.” That’s not a view necessarily shared by the National Retail Federation, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/weak-consumer-confidence-rising-inflation-dim-peak-season-hopes-6217405">which indicated on Friday</a> that peak season for US imports will be less than impressive due to weak consumer confidence, rising inflation and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. <h3>HMM’s Q1 earnings also fall </h3>Meanwhile, South Korea carrier HMM also reported a sharp drop in first-quarter earnings as falling rates and rising costs from the Middle East war weighed on its results despite a 14.2% increase in volume. The carrier handled just over 1 million TEUs in Q1 compared to 926,000 TEUs in the same period last year.The damage came from average freight rates that fell 20% year over year to $1,089/TEU that impacted all the key earnings metrics. Revenue fell 4.8% year over year to $1.8 million, operating profit declined 56% to $181 million and first-quarter net profit of $237 million was down 52%, HMM said in a statement Wednesday. The carrier warned of growing market uncertainty driven by increasing vessel capacity from a bloated order book, rising costs associated with the Middle East war, and US tariff policies. “HMM will implement fuel cost optimization strategies to mitigate the impact of prolonged high oil prices,” the carrier noted. “HMM also plans to launch new routes to markets like Africa by adopting a hub-and-spoke strategy, while securing new demand in regions such as Southeast Asia.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd recorded a $300 million loss in the first quarter as severe winter weather on both sides of the Atlantic, rising energy costs and sharply declining rates dragged down the carrier’s earnings. It was “an unsatisfactory start to the year,” Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told reporters during a results briefing Wednesday. “We had adverse weather conditions in north and south Europe in January and February, and similar conditions on the East Coast of the US, and we are heavily exposed to those markets,” he said. Although bunker prices fell in the first quarter because of the time lag between purchase and consumption, higher terminal storage costs stacked up from weather-related port congestion in January and February, with Middle East-related disruptions adding to March operating costs. Hapag-Lloyd’s first-quarter volume was down 0.7% at 3.2 million TEUs, while average freight rates fell 10% year over year to $1,330 per TEU. The weak performance in the liner shipping segment dragged Hapag’s revenue down 7.5% to $4.9 billion. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 54% to $500 million and earnings before interest and taxes were down 60% at $200 million. The $300 million net loss was down from a $500 million profit in the first quarter of 2025. War in the Middle East drove up energy prices from the end of February. Habben Jansen said the carrier was bunkering 100,000 tons of fuel a week, which was adding $50 million to $60 million to its weekly bills. “The situation in the Middle East caused significant extra cost from March, which we hope to recover through surcharges in the second quarter,” the CEO said. “A significant increase in bunker cost is expected in Q2 which will be covered by our emergency fuel surcharge and the regular marine fuel recovery mechanism.” Recovering rising bunker costs Half of the carrier’s volume is under contract where surcharges enable rising fuel costs to be fully recovered. On the spot market, Habben Jansen said rising rates through the peak season will factor in the bunker costs. “Looking at the sheer magnitude of the additional costs that we face, I think in most cases we have sensible discussions with customers, and that can be that we either come up with an emergency additional charge, or in some cases we move from a quarterly adjustment in the bunker formula to a monthly adjustment,” he said. While volume was flat compared with the first quarter of last year, the carrier was seeing solid market demand into May and beyond, and Habben Jansen said the industry was on track for a “decent” peak season. “We don’t see any real softening in demand for cargo at this point,” he said. “When we look at forward bookings, when we look at futures markets, when we talk to customers, there is an expectation that we will have a pretty decent peak season.” That’s not a view necessarily shared by the National Retail Federation, which indicated on Friday that peak season for US imports will be less than impressive due to weak consumer confidence, rising inflation and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. HMM’s Q1 earnings also fall Meanwhile, South Korea carrier HMM also reported a sharp drop in first-quarter earnings as falling rates and rising costs from the Middle East war weighed on its results despite a 14.2% increase in volume. The carrier handled just over 1 million TEUs in Q1 compared to 926,000 TEUs in the same period last year. The damage came from average freight rates that fell 20% year over year to $1,089/TEU that impacted all the key earnings metrics. Revenue fell 4.8% year over year to $1.8 million, operating profit declined 56% to $181 million and first-quarter net profit of $237 million was down 52%, HMM said in a statement Wednesday. The carrier warned of growing market uncertainty driven by increasing vessel capacity from a bloated order book, rising costs associated with the Middle East war, and US tariff policies. “HMM will implement fuel cost optimization strategies to mitigate the impact of prolonged high oil prices,” the carrier noted. “HMM also plans to launch new routes to markets like Africa by adopting a hub-and-spoke strategy, while securing new demand in regions such as Southeast Asia.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Hapag-Lloyd posts Q1 net loss in ‘unsatisfactory’ start to 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Trucking industry attorneys say last week’s decision by the Supreme Court is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage.</div>

Trucking industry attorneys say last week’s decision by the Supreme Court is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage.

<div class="phx-topic">The unanimous <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/supreme-court-ruling-strips-broker-protection-linked-to-carrier-safety-6220667">Supreme Court ruling</a> allowing certain state-level negligence claims against freight brokers is expected to increase pressure on motor carriers to carry higher insurance limits and could eventually contribute to higher transportation costs, trucking attorneys say. The May 14 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transports LLC held that freight brokers are not shielded from some state personal injury lawsuits, potentially expanding liability exposure for intermediaries that arrange truck freight. Attorneys on both sides of the trucking industry said the ruling is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage. “A lot of brokers are going to go to their trucking companies and say, ‘You’ve been running loads with $1 million worth of insurance. Since we’re exposed, you can cause a lot more than $1 million worth of damage,’” Ed Leonard, a partner at San Diego law firm Tyson &amp; Mendes, which represents trucking companies in civil litigation, said. Leonard told the Journal of Commerce that brokers are likely to require higher liability coverage from carriers moving freight, particularly smaller operators with marginal safety records. “They’re going to be asking these trucking companies to buy more insurance,” he said. “This is going to cost more money to get things done.” The ruling could also tighten trucking capacity if higher insurance premiums force some smaller fleets and owner-operators to exit the market, Leonard said. That could place additional upward pressure on freight rates at a time when parts of the trucking industry are already navigating labor and regulatory disruptions. <h3>‘A big deal’ </h3>Plaintiff attorneys, meanwhile, said the decision gives crash victims a significant new legal avenue by allowing brokers to be named in lawsuits involving serious injuries and fatalities. “These major trucking accidents result in deaths, amputations and traumatic brain injuries, and this opens the door to brokers, making them a viable defendant,” said Edward Bassett, a partner at Mirick Law and former president of the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America. “Whether you are popping champagne or Diet Coke at plaintiff firms, this is a big deal.” Bassett said brokers are likely to more carefully scrutinize the carriers they hire, rather than selecting providers primarily on price. “They’re going to start looking carefully at the carriers they hire and not just the cheaper ones,” he said. “They’re being held responsible if they hire fly-by-night companies.” The case decided by the Supreme Court last week stemmed from a 2017 crash in Illinois involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery, who suffered catastrophic injuries and lost a leg after his parked tractor-trailer was struck by another truck. The Supreme Court ruled Montgomery could pursue claims against freight broker C.H. Robinson, which arranged the shipment. Montgomery’s attorneys argued that carrier Caribe Transport II had a poor safety record and that the broker should share liability for hiring it. C.H. Robinson argued that because trucking companies are federally licensed and regulated, brokers should be shielded from state negligence claims tied to carrier safety. The court disagreed, concluding that federal transportation law does not broadly preempt those claims. <h3>Federal data under scrutiny </h3>The decision could renew debate over trucking insurance minimums, which have remained largely unchanged since the Reagan administration. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) currently requires minimum liability coverage ranging from $750,000 to $5 million depending on the type of freight being hauled. Since 1985, Congress has repeatedly considered raising those thresholds or indexing them to inflation, but those efforts have stalled. FMCSA studies have suggested current minimums may be insufficient to cover catastrophic crashes and rising medical costs. Industry groups, however, have argued most claims settle below existing coverage requirements and that raising insurance mandates would disproportionately hurt small and midsize carriers by increasing operating costs. “We think it’s a bad decision. We had to be defending these cases before and we’ll be defending them after,” said Nathaniel Saylor, a partner at transportation law firm Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson &amp; Feary. “The question in these cases before the jury will always be, what is reasonable care. That standard was the standard yesterday and tomorrow as well. Nothing has changed regarding the broker’s duty. But the temperature is up on this issue, and you can expect the plaintiff bar will be pursuing these cases very aggressively.” Saylor said one major issue going forward will be the reliability of FMCSA safety data used by brokers to evaluate carriers, because critics of the system have said the information can be incomplete or outdated. “Brokers are dealing with carriers authorized by the federal government to operate,” Saylor said. “If brokers can be liable, we should at least make sure brokers have the right information available. How is the broker supposed to know that one carrier is more or less safe than another? “More information is good, and it helps,” he added. “With that information, FMCSA can identify unsafe carriers, remove them from the market and ensure the available capacity is safer.” Contact Dan Ronan at <a href="mailto:contactdanronan@gmail.com">contactdanronan@gmail.com</a>. </div>

The unanimous Supreme Court ruling allowing certain state-level negligence claims against freight brokers is expected to increase pressure on motor carriers to carry higher insurance limits and could eventually contribute to higher transportation costs, trucking attorneys say. The May 14 decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transports LLC held that freight brokers are not shielded from some state personal injury lawsuits, potentially expanding liability exposure for intermediaries that arrange truck freight. Attorneys on both sides of the trucking industry said the ruling is likely to intensify scrutiny of carrier selection practices and insurance coverage. “A lot of brokers are going to go to their trucking companies and say, ‘You’ve been running loads with $1 million worth of insurance. Since we’re exposed, you can cause a lot more than $1 million worth of damage,’” Ed Leonard, a partner at San Diego law firm Tyson & Mendes, which represents trucking companies in civil litigation, said. Leonard told the Journal of Commerce that brokers are likely to require higher liability coverage from carriers moving freight, particularly smaller operators with marginal safety records. “They’re going to be asking these trucking companies to buy more insurance,” he said. “This is going to cost more money to get things done.” The ruling could also tighten trucking capacity if higher insurance premiums force some smaller fleets and owner-operators to exit the market, Leonard said. That could place additional upward pressure on freight rates at a time when parts of the trucking industry are already navigating labor and regulatory disruptions. ‘A big deal’ Plaintiff attorneys, meanwhile, said the decision gives crash victims a significant new legal avenue by allowing brokers to be named in lawsuits involving serious injuries and fatalities. “These major trucking accidents result in deaths, amputations and traumatic brain injuries, and this opens the door to brokers, making them a viable defendant,” said Edward Bassett, a partner at Mirick Law and former president of the Association of Plaintiff Interstate Trucking Lawyers of America. “Whether you are popping champagne or Diet Coke at plaintiff firms, this is a big deal.” Bassett said brokers are likely to more carefully scrutinize the carriers they hire, rather than selecting providers primarily on price. “They’re going to start looking carefully at the carriers they hire and not just the cheaper ones,” he said. “They’re being held responsible if they hire fly-by-night companies.” The case decided by the Supreme Court last week stemmed from a 2017 crash in Illinois involving truck driver Shawn Montgomery, who suffered catastrophic injuries and lost a leg after his parked tractor-trailer was struck by another truck. The Supreme Court ruled Montgomery could pursue claims against freight broker C.H. Robinson, which arranged the shipment. Montgomery’s attorneys argued that carrier Caribe Transport II had a poor safety record and that the broker should share liability for hiring it. C.H. Robinson argued that because trucking companies are federally licensed and regulated, brokers should be shielded from state negligence claims tied to carrier safety. The court disagreed, concluding that federal transportation law does not broadly preempt those claims. Federal data under scrutiny The decision could renew debate over trucking insurance minimums, which have remained largely unchanged since the Reagan administration. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) currently requires minimum liability coverage ranging from $750,000 to $5 million depending on the type of freight being hauled. Since 1985, Congress has repeatedly considered raising those thresholds or indexing them to inflation, but those efforts have stalled. FMCSA studies have suggested current minimums may be insufficient to cover catastrophic crashes and rising medical costs. Industry groups, however, have argued most claims settle below existing coverage requirements and that raising insurance mandates would disproportionately hurt small and midsize carriers by increasing operating costs. “We think it’s a bad decision. We had to be defending these cases before and we’ll be defending them after,” said Nathaniel Saylor, a partner at transportation law firm Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson & Feary. “The question in these cases before the jury will always be, what is reasonable care. That standard was the standard yesterday and tomorrow as well. Nothing has changed regarding the broker’s duty. But the temperature is up on this issue, and you can expect the plaintiff bar will be pursuing these cases very aggressively.” Saylor said one major issue going forward will be the reliability of FMCSA safety data used by brokers to evaluate carriers, because critics of the system have said the information can be incomplete or outdated. “Brokers are dealing with carriers authorized by the federal government to operate,” Saylor said. “If brokers can be liable, we should at least make sure brokers have the right information available. How is the broker supposed to know that one carrier is more or less safe than another? “More information is good, and it helps,” he added. “With that information, FMCSA can identify unsafe carriers, remove them from the market and ensure the available capacity is safer.” Contact Dan Ronan at contactdanronan@gmail.com .

US ports outline spending goals in push to reshore crane making

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Impending sale of Maher likely to reshape competitive dynamics at Port of NY-NJ

Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes

Asia-Europe air cargo rates remain elevated as Gulf tensions escalate

Recent Commentary

Another nail in the coffin of trust between carriers, clients

A shipper’s decision framework for Amazon Supply Chain Services

Top 5 Most Read Stories