<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The move to ensure commercial drivers comply with US law requiring English-language proficiency will have ramifications for shippers, carriers and drivers. </div>

The move to ensure commercial drivers comply with US law requiring English-language proficiency will have ramifications for shippers, carriers and drivers.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Truck drivers in the US who can’t speak English are facing a crackdown, with the Department of Transportation (DOT) promising to take them off the road. The step to ensure commercial drivers comply with US law requiring English-language proficiency (ELP) will have ramifications for shippers, carriers and drivers. Loads could be delayed, driver hours of service affected, and truck capacity may get tighter. But supporters of the move claim US highways will be safer and point out that ELP is the law. Starting June 25, truck drivers who cannot communicate with law enforcement during roadside inspections or at weigh stations will be placed out of service, meaning they will not be permitted to drive, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Tuesday. “We are issuing new guidance that ensures a driver who can’t understand English will not drive a commercial vehicle in this country,” Duffy said at a press conference in Austin, Texas, that was livestreamed by DOT. Duffy signed an order replacing guidance issued by the Obama administration in 2016. That guidance removed the requirement to place drivers out of service for an ELP violation if they could communicate with inspectors or police by other means. “[If] someone is pulled over and can’t speak the language, they’ll be pulled out of service,” Duffy said. “Before, they’d be given a slap on the wrist and allowed to go on.” The new guidance will make employing non-English speaking drivers “very costly,” he said. <h3>DOT says safety at risk </h3>ELP enforcement is primarily a safety issue, Duffy said, adding that “allowing drivers who cannot read stop signs threatens the safety of every American on our roadways.” But other issues are contributing to calls for tighter ELP enforcement, especially from US trucking organizations. One is the allegation that some carriers are using non-English speakers as “cheap labor,” and thus denying work to qualified US truck drivers. “There are far too many unqualified drivers driving on the road today, too many loopholes that result in drivers who lack the basic skills,” Todd Spencer, president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), said at the Austin event. The DOT will review how states issue commercial driver’s licenses and review the security of licenses issued by states to drivers outside their jurisdiction, or non-domiciled licenses. “It feels like the trucking industry has become the Wild West with a lot of bad actors who have been allowed to play in this space,” said Duffy. “We’re going to improve verification protocols for both domestic and international credentials to ensure that only qualified drivers are behind the wheel on American roads,” he added. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Truck drivers in the US who can’t speak English are facing a crackdown, with the Department of Transportation (DOT) promising to take them off the road. The step to ensure commercial drivers comply with US law requiring English-language proficiency (ELP) will have ramifications for shippers, carriers and drivers. Loads could be delayed, driver hours of service affected, and truck capacity may get tighter. But supporters of the move claim US highways will be safer and point out that ELP is the law. Starting June 25, truck drivers who cannot communicate with law enforcement during roadside inspections or at weigh stations will be placed out of service, meaning they will not be permitted to drive, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced Tuesday. “We are issuing new guidance that ensures a driver who can’t understand English will not drive a commercial vehicle in this country,” Duffy said at a press conference in Austin, Texas, that was livestreamed by DOT. Duffy signed an order replacing guidance issued by the Obama administration in 2016. That guidance removed the requirement to place drivers out of service for an ELP violation if they could communicate with inspectors or police by other means. “[If] someone is pulled over and can’t speak the language, they’ll be pulled out of service,” Duffy said. “Before, they’d be given a slap on the wrist and allowed to go on.” The new guidance will make employing non-English speaking drivers “very costly,” he said. DOT says safety at risk ELP enforcement is primarily a safety issue, Duffy said, adding that “allowing drivers who cannot read stop signs threatens the safety of every American on our roadways.” But other issues are contributing to calls for tighter ELP enforcement, especially from US trucking organizations. One is the allegation that some carriers are using non-English speakers as “cheap labor,” and thus denying work to qualified US truck drivers. “There are far too many unqualified drivers driving on the road today, too many loopholes that result in drivers who lack the basic skills,” Todd Spencer, president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), said at the Austin event. The DOT will review how states issue commercial driver’s licenses and review the security of licenses issued by states to drivers outside their jurisdiction, or non-domiciled licenses. “It feels like the trucking industry has become the Wild West with a lot of bad actors who have been allowed to play in this space,” said Duffy. “We’re going to improve verification protocols for both domestic and international credentials to ensure that only qualified drivers are behind the wheel on American roads,” he added. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Surface

US DOT initiates crackdown on non-English-speaking truckers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers may find it difficult to bring trans-Pacific capacity back quickly because they repositioned ships into other trades outside of the region amid the tariff-linked demand drop in April and early May. </div>

Carriers may find it difficult to bring trans-Pacific capacity back quickly because they repositioned ships into other trades outside of the region amid the tariff-linked demand drop in April and early May.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers are bringing suspended container services back to the trans-Pacific next month due to heavy import demand from China. Even so, capacity remains tight in the near term as some ships that once served the trans-Pacific have been redeployed to other lanes. President Donald Trump’s temporary reprieve on reciprocal tariffs against China has meant the resumption of previously canceled ocean freight bookings, as well as likely frontloading of imports during the 90-day reprieve period, which ends Aug. 14. That means container capacity from China is “tight” through the first week of July, Hong Kong-based logistics provider Honour Lane Shipping said in its most recent trans-Pacific market update, adding that cargo may likely be rolled to later voyages due to space constraints. “All carriers are facing serious space shortages as they’ve cut a large percentage of their capacities by service suspension and blank sailings in the previous two months,” Honour Lane said. “Most vessels are very full by the end of the month, and many of them have overbooking.” Zim Integrated Shipping Service was one of the first out of the gate to announce <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-restarts-china-los-angeles-service-to-capture-fresh-import-demand-6007601">it will restart an express service</a> from China to the Port of Los Angeles, and now other carriers are following suit. After <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/april-blank-sailings-ramp-up-amid-push-to-finalize-long-term-contracts-5974802">a slate of blank sailings</a>, Mediterranean Shipping Co. is resuming regular weekly sailings on its Orient service between China and the Port of Long Beach starting with the June 9 departure from Shanghai of the 8,500-TEU MSC Tianshan, according to MSC’s vessel schedule. The Premier Alliance also appears to be planning a restart of its PS5 service from China to the ports of Long Beach and Oakland. Alliance member Ocean Network Express (ONE) shows four vessels already nominated to the string, with the first voyage from Qingdao on June 6 on the 6,589-TEU YM Mobility. The resumption of the PS5, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-capacity-cuts-accelerating-amid-sharp-reduction-in-chinese-cargo-5992769">originally planned for May</a>, was delayed due to the downturn in import demand. <h3>‘Takes time to resume services’ </h3>Other carriers, though, may find it more difficult to bring trans-Pacific capacity back quickly because they have repositioned ships into other trades outside of the region, Honour Lane’s report said. “Despite the demand spikes, carriers have yet to return capacity to China,” Honour Lane said. “It takes time to resume services or cancel blank sailings which have been announced months ago.” Cosco Shipping’s AAC4 service from central China to Long Beach went to a biweekly schedule, instead of weekly, through May due to the post-tariff demand downturn. While the service is set to resume weekly voyages in June, Cosco redeployed two vessels in the AAC4 service to other markets. The 14,568-TEU Cosco Shipping Alps, which had called Long Beach regularly since 2023 as part of the AAC4 service, is now destined for the Port of Rotterdam with a May 24 estimated arrival, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Likewise, the 13,386-TEU Cosco Portugal, which had been in the AAC4 rotation since 2021, is also scheduled to call Rotterdam in June. Evergreen Marine may also have to reposition ships to the trans-Pacific to meet the renewed demand. After its CPS service to Los Angeles blanked five weekly voyages through April and May, two vessels in that service went to other trades. Evergreen’s 11,888-TEU Ever Fame had been in the rotation for the carrier’s CPS service since this year, port call data shows. However, since the CPS started blanking its weekly calls, the Ever Fame is now en route to Rio De Janeiro as part of Evergreen’s Far East-South America service. The 12,118-TEU Ever Frank, which was also put into the CPS rotation at the start of 2025, is now en route to Southampton, England, as part of Evergreen’s China-Europe Shuttle service. Evergreen is now looking to backfill capacity in the wake of the schedule changes. The carrier scheduled two ad hoc calls to Los Angeles in May on its Asia-Northwest Pacific service. Evergreen’s HTW service also made ad hoc calls to Shanghai and Ningbo after service from those ports was curtailed. Other Ocean Alliance members are resuming regular trans-Pacific services. CMA CGM’s Pearl River Express service to Los Angeles, which canceled nearly all its sailings from April through May, plans to return to a regular weekly cadence in June, as does OOCL’s Pacific South China Express service. Cosco Shipping is set to deploy two extra loaders from China to Long Beach this week to handle the sudden demand surge, but it’s “not sure whether it would be enough to mitigate the short supply,” Honour Lane said in its advisory. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean carriers are bringing suspended container services back to the trans-Pacific next month due to heavy import demand from China. Even so, capacity remains tight in the near term as some ships that once served the trans-Pacific have been redeployed to other lanes. President Donald Trump’s temporary reprieve on reciprocal tariffs against China has meant the resumption of previously canceled ocean freight bookings, as well as likely frontloading of imports during the 90-day reprieve period, which ends Aug. 14. That means container capacity from China is “tight” through the first week of July, Hong Kong-based logistics provider Honour Lane Shipping said in its most recent trans-Pacific market update, adding that cargo may likely be rolled to later voyages due to space constraints. “All carriers are facing serious space shortages as they’ve cut a large percentage of their capacities by service suspension and blank sailings in the previous two months,” Honour Lane said. “Most vessels are very full by the end of the month, and many of them have overbooking.” Zim Integrated Shipping Service was one of the first out of the gate to announce it will restart an express service from China to the Port of Los Angeles, and now other carriers are following suit. After a slate of blank sailings , Mediterranean Shipping Co. is resuming regular weekly sailings on its Orient service between China and the Port of Long Beach starting with the June 9 departure from Shanghai of the 8,500-TEU MSC Tianshan, according to MSC’s vessel schedule. The Premier Alliance also appears to be planning a restart of its PS5 service from China to the ports of Long Beach and Oakland. Alliance member Ocean Network Express (ONE) shows four vessels already nominated to the string, with the first voyage from Qingdao on June 6 on the 6,589-TEU YM Mobility. The resumption of the PS5, originally planned for May , was delayed due to the downturn in import demand. ‘Takes time to resume services’ Other carriers, though, may find it more difficult to bring trans-Pacific capacity back quickly because they have repositioned ships into other trades outside of the region, Honour Lane’s report said. “Despite the demand spikes, carriers have yet to return capacity to China,” Honour Lane said. “It takes time to resume services or cancel blank sailings which have been announced months ago.” Cosco Shipping’s AAC4 service from central China to Long Beach went to a biweekly schedule, instead of weekly, through May due to the post-tariff demand downturn. While the service is set to resume weekly voyages in June, Cosco redeployed two vessels in the AAC4 service to other markets. The 14,568-TEU Cosco Shipping Alps, which had called Long Beach regularly since 2023 as part of the AAC4 service, is now destined for the Port of Rotterdam with a May 24 estimated arrival, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Likewise, the 13,386-TEU Cosco Portugal, which had been in the AAC4 rotation since 2021, is also scheduled to call Rotterdam in June. Evergreen Marine may also have to reposition ships to the trans-Pacific to meet the renewed demand. After its CPS service to Los Angeles blanked five weekly voyages through April and May, two vessels in that service went to other trades. Evergreen’s 11,888-TEU Ever Fame had been in the rotation for the carrier’s CPS service since this year, port call data shows. However, since the CPS started blanking its weekly calls, the Ever Fame is now en route to Rio De Janeiro as part of Evergreen’s Far East-South America service. The 12,118-TEU Ever Frank, which was also put into the CPS rotation at the start of 2025, is now en route to Southampton, England, as part of Evergreen’s China-Europe Shuttle service. Evergreen is now looking to backfill capacity in the wake of the schedule changes. The carrier scheduled two ad hoc calls to Los Angeles in May on its Asia-Northwest Pacific service. Evergreen’s HTW service also made ad hoc calls to Shanghai and Ningbo after service from those ports was curtailed. Other Ocean Alliance members are resuming regular trans-Pacific services. CMA CGM’s Pearl River Express service to Los Angeles, which canceled nearly all its sailings from April through May, plans to return to a regular weekly cadence in June, as does OOCL’s Pacific South China Express service. Cosco Shipping is set to deploy two extra loaders from China to Long Beach this week to handle the sudden demand surge, but it’s “not sure whether it would be enough to mitigate the short supply,” Honour Lane said in its advisory. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

North American ports

Container lines

Trans-Pacific services set for restart as carriers scramble to restore capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Matt Schrap, who has headed the HTA for the past four years, told the Journal of Commerce he is transitioning to another job but will remain with the group through late August.</div>

Matt Schrap, who has headed the HTA for the past four years, told the Journal of Commerce he is transitioning to another job but will remain with the group through late August.

<div class="phx-topic">The Harbor Trucking Association, which represents drayage operators at ports along the US West Coast, has launched a nationwide search for a new CEO after announcing that Matt Schrap is leaving the organization. Schrap, who has headed the HTA for the past four years, told the Journal of Commerce he is transitioning to another job but will remain with the group through late August. HTA said in a statement on Tuesday it is seeking “a strategic leader with proven experience in transportation, logistics and stakeholder engagement.” The Long Beach-based HTA represents the interests of drayage operators serving the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle and Tacoma. It publishes a detailed monthly report on truck turn times at container terminals in Southern California and Oakland. Drayage operators have been dealing with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tariff-related-disruption-spreading-as-us-shippers-pause-plans-5989017">supply chain disruptions due to tariff uncertainties</a>, fluctuating vessel arrivals as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-supply-chain-planning-must-involve-a-mix-of-the-known-and-unknown-6008684">carriers blank multiple sailings in the trans-Pacific</a>, and mounting empty containers at marine terminals. Longer-standing issues such as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/empty-containers-piling-up-in-los-angeles-long-beach-after-january-import-surge-5966996">securing sufficient appointment slots at marine terminals</a> are also a challenge. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Harbor Trucking Association, which represents drayage operators at ports along the US West Coast, has launched a nationwide search for a new CEO after announcing that Matt Schrap is leaving the organization. Schrap, who has headed the HTA for the past four years, told the Journal of Commerce he is transitioning to another job but will remain with the group through late August. HTA said in a statement on Tuesday it is seeking “a strategic leader with proven experience in transportation, logistics and stakeholder engagement.” The Long Beach-based HTA represents the interests of drayage operators serving the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle and Tacoma. It publishes a detailed monthly report on truck turn times at container terminals in Southern California and Oakland. Drayage operators have been dealing with supply chain disruptions due to tariff uncertainties , fluctuating vessel arrivals as carriers blank multiple sailings in the trans-Pacific , and mounting empty containers at marine terminals. Longer-standing issues such as securing sufficient appointment slots at marine terminals are also a challenge. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Port News

Drayage

Marine terminals

HTA seeks new CEO amid multiple challenges for West Coast drayage operators

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A calendar quirk is causing consternation for importers of non-Chinese goods with long lead times who believed they had avoided the first salvo of US tariffs by loading their cargo before the prescribed “load-by” date and are now facing unexpected costs.</div>

A calendar quirk is causing consternation for importers of non-Chinese goods with long lead times who believed they had avoided the first salvo of US tariffs by loading their cargo before the prescribed “load-by” date and are now facing unexpected costs.

<div class="phx-topic">Some US importers with long ocean transit times, including those who move cargo through transshipment hubs, will be on the hook for the 10% US tariffs now in place on non-Chinese goods even if those goods beat an April 5 load-by deadline to avoid the tariffs. That’s because of a shorter-than-usual length of time set by the Trump administration encompassing the cutoff dates between when goods needed to depart their origin ports and arrive at destination ports. And that scheduling quirk is causing consternation for importers who believed they had avoided the first salvo of tariffs by loading their cargo before the prescribed date and are now facing unexpected costs. Don Pisano, president of American Coffee Corp., said shipments from Southeast Asia to US Gulf ports regularly take 60 days, longer than the gap between the “load-by” April 5 deadline set by the White House and the May 27 arrival date set by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in which the goods must be “entered for consumption.” “It seems completely arbitrary and punitive,” Pisano told the Journal of Commerce. Pisano pointed to another example on a different lane, a containerized shipment of coffee that left Brazil’s Port of Santos in late March on a service that went west through the Panama Canal, to Shanghai and then to the US West Coast. “That’s not arriving until May 29, and we’ll have to pay $20,000 in tariffs because [the carrier] routed it through Shanghai,” he said. Further, shippers whose goods were transshipped, with the final leg departing after April 5, will also be subject to the 10% US tariffs, even if the cargo shipped from origin prior to April 5. In many cases, the decision to transship is out of the control of importers. <h3>Delay in ‘end-date’ guidance </h3>Gabrielle Griffith, a director at BPE Global, a trade compliance consulting firm, said an end date for the in-transit exemption was not initially specified <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-announces-10-across-the-board-tariffs-on-all-us-imports-5975639">when the reciprocal tariffs were imposed April 2 through President Donald Trump’s executive order</a>. The end-date guidance came two days later, on April 4, in a separate message in the Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS), a channel CBP uses to communicate with the trade community. Griffith said the April 4 message from CBP added the May 27 cutoff in order to, in the agency’s words, “prevent abuse of exemption,” and was reiterated by CBP on April 8. Pisano’s contention is that most goods aiming to beat the April 5 deadline were loaded or on the water prior to either of those guidance messages being issued, as importers were racing to beat the deadline. Griffith said the end-date provision aligns with prior CBP practices for tariff exclusions but differs from earlier executive orders issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) that lacked time limits. The end date was not specified in Trump’s executive order, but CBP has some leeway to interpret the application of that order. <h3>Transshipment confusion </h3>The transshipment issue is potentially more vexing for importers, as CBP’s original guidance on April 4 wasn’t clear, according to a range of trade compliance experts. At issue is whether reciprocal tariffs would be exempted if goods departed their origin port before April 5, or if transshipped, departed the final leg of their ocean journey prior to April 5. Guidance issued by CBP on May 15, which included a set of frequently asked questions, included details on how transshipment would impact tariff exemptions. The guidance painted a scenario in which, prior to the cutoff date for the reciprocal tariff in-transit provision, US-bound cargo is loaded onto a vessel destined for a foreign port prior to shipment to the US. At that foreign port, after April 5, the cargo is transferred onto a different vessel destined for the US. “The cargo in this scenario does not qualify for the in-transit exception for reciprocal tariffs because the US bound cargo was laden onto a vessel destined for the US after the cutoff date irrespective of when it departed from the original port of lading,” CBP wrote, responding to its own rhetorical question in the guidance. A trade attorney who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce that the May 15 guidance on transshipment is “inconsistent with previous guidance we received from CBP on the same question, so we are trying to reconcile this.” The fact that guidance on transshipment came six weeks after the initial executive order will now impact importers for whom it wasn’t clear that such a routing wouldn’t be exempted, Pisano said. “It took them six weeks to come up with the wrong conclusion,” he said. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Some US importers with long ocean transit times, including those who move cargo through transshipment hubs, will be on the hook for the 10% US tariffs now in place on non-Chinese goods even if those goods beat an April 5 load-by deadline to avoid the tariffs. That’s because of a shorter-than-usual length of time set by the Trump administration encompassing the cutoff dates between when goods needed to depart their origin ports and arrive at destination ports. And that scheduling quirk is causing consternation for importers who believed they had avoided the first salvo of tariffs by loading their cargo before the prescribed date and are now facing unexpected costs. Don Pisano, president of American Coffee Corp., said shipments from Southeast Asia to US Gulf ports regularly take 60 days, longer than the gap between the “load-by” April 5 deadline set by the White House and the May 27 arrival date set by US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in which the goods must be “entered for consumption.” “It seems completely arbitrary and punitive,” Pisano told the Journal of Commerce. Pisano pointed to another example on a different lane, a containerized shipment of coffee that left Brazil’s Port of Santos in late March on a service that went west through the Panama Canal, to Shanghai and then to the US West Coast. “That’s not arriving until May 29, and we’ll have to pay $20,000 in tariffs because [the carrier] routed it through Shanghai,” he said. Further, shippers whose goods were transshipped, with the final leg departing after April 5, will also be subject to the 10% US tariffs, even if the cargo shipped from origin prior to April 5. In many cases, the decision to transship is out of the control of importers. Delay in ‘end-date’ guidance Gabrielle Griffith, a director at BPE Global, a trade compliance consulting firm, said an end date for the in-transit exemption was not initially specified when the reciprocal tariffs were imposed April 2 through President Donald Trump’s executive order . The end-date guidance came two days later, on April 4, in a separate message in the Cargo Systems Messaging Service (CSMS), a channel CBP uses to communicate with the trade community. Griffith said the April 4 message from CBP added the May 27 cutoff in order to, in the agency’s words, “prevent abuse of exemption,” and was reiterated by CBP on April 8. Pisano’s contention is that most goods aiming to beat the April 5 deadline were loaded or on the water prior to either of those guidance messages being issued, as importers were racing to beat the deadline. Griffith said the end-date provision aligns with prior CBP practices for tariff exclusions but differs from earlier executive orders issued under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEPPA) that lacked time limits. The end date was not specified in Trump’s executive order, but CBP has some leeway to interpret the application of that order. Transshipment confusion The transshipment issue is potentially more vexing for importers, as CBP’s original guidance on April 4 wasn’t clear, according to a range of trade compliance experts. At issue is whether reciprocal tariffs would be exempted if goods departed their origin port before April 5, or if transshipped, departed the final leg of their ocean journey prior to April 5. Guidance issued by CBP on May 15, which included a set of frequently asked questions, included details on how transshipment would impact tariff exemptions. The guidance painted a scenario in which, prior to the cutoff date for the reciprocal tariff in-transit provision, US-bound cargo is loaded onto a vessel destined for a foreign port prior to shipment to the US. At that foreign port, after April 5, the cargo is transferred onto a different vessel destined for the US. “The cargo in this scenario does not qualify for the in-transit exception for reciprocal tariffs because the US bound cargo was laden onto a vessel destined for the US after the cutoff date irrespective of when it departed from the original port of lading,” CBP wrote, responding to its own rhetorical question in the guidance. A trade attorney who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce that the May 15 guidance on transshipment is “inconsistent with previous guidance we received from CBP on the same question, so we are trying to reconcile this.” The fact that guidance on transshipment came six weeks after the initial executive order will now impact importers for whom it wasn’t clear that such a routing wouldn’t be exempted, Pisano said. “It took them six weeks to come up with the wrong conclusion,” he said. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Container Shipping News

Supply chain

Scheduling linked to 10% tariffs causing confusion, angst for US importers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Hapag-Lloyd is betting it can extract economic value for itself through smart containers in the form of improved fleet utilization, thereby de-risking the uptake — or lack thereof — from customers.</div>

Hapag-Lloyd is betting it can extract economic value for itself through smart containers in the form of improved fleet utilization, thereby de-risking the uptake — or lack thereof — from customers.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd is testing whether a major investment in container sensors deployed on its two-million-unit container fleet can take cargo visibility, a longtime source of frustration to shippers, to a new level. That bet comes as container lines continue to struggle to commercialize such investments by charging shippers for more accurate and continuous location and condition data. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6009190_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“The smart container industry has faced challenges in scaling due to [the] lack of customers’ willingness to pay for the additional service, and carriers’ difficulties in justifying the internal [return on investment],” said a study by consultancy Roland Berger published in November. Hapag-Lloyd is trying to change this paradigm by betting it can extract economic value for itself through smart containers in the form of improved fleet utilization, thereby de-risking the uptake — or lack thereof — from customers. “What carriers do with visibility operationally will justify their investment initially, enabling the subsequent pursuit of the other commercial use case categories,” said Erik Lund, managing director for maritime and logistics at Nexxiot, which, along with Orbcomm, supplies the internet-of-things devices used by Hapag-Lloyd. The return on investment for a carrier, excluding revenue from customers, can come from multiple sources, including reducing empty repositioning costs if boxes can be more easily redirected to the next user versus having to flow through a depot. A carrier can also use smart containers to better position empties where they expect demand to materialize, thus being in a better place to accept spot bookings, theoretically at a more competitive cost than other lines because they don’t need to move that empty after receiving a booking request. “If I have much more accurate information about where my empty is I am going to get greater utilization out of my container fleet overall,” said Curtis Spencer, CEO of Bloodhound Tracking Devices, a subscription-based IoT device provider to the industry. But even if an acceptable return on investment is achieved through improved asset utilization, it still leaves unanswered the question of whether smart containers can produce a breakthrough in visibility valuable enough for shippers that significant numbers would be willing to pay for it. The question boils down to this: Will a continuously emitting IoT device attached to the outside of a container create an accurate and consistent enough data flow that it can drive more meaningful decisions versus milestone-based visibility methods long criticized for inaccurate and incomplete data? With Hapag-Lloyd having installed tracking devices on 90% of its container fleet (with a goal to reach 100% “shortly”), and this summer rolling out a predictive ETA service for shippers, the premise will soon be put to the test. Even if the data is good enough, scale, at least currently, is still a limitation. Hapag-Lloyd is only one carrier, with Zim Integrated Shipping Services and Ocean Network Express having announced similar plans. And standards don’t yet exist for smart containers to transmit while aboard the ships of alliance partners, according to the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA). Other carriers such as Mediterranean Shipping Co., the world’s largest, are using smart containers selectively in reefer and to combat drug smuggling in the wake of the 2019 cocaine seizure aboard an MSC ship in Philadelphia. MSC’s use of Traxens is also available for shippers on an ad hoc basis if they want continuous premium tracking, but it is used sparingly. <h3>Lack of ‘transformative outcomes’ </h3>Ocean visibility made progress in recent years with the advent of niche specialists such as project44 and FourKites, which aggregate data feeds from multiple sources for customers. But both companies have recently appeared to de-emphasize visibility as their core product propositions amid larger questions about overall value creation. As previously reported by the Journal of Commerce, the more than $1.4 billion of venture capital invested into freight visibility providers over the last five years has not translated into transformative outcomes for users. A different approach — sensors attached to the cargo or the pallet inside the container — has found a market in shipper-specific scenarios for high-value or sensitive cargoes, including electronics and pharma, but faces a reverse logistics challenge in needing to be removed and re-delivered after each transit. “We have not seen a mass scale adoption for broader logistics [beneficial cargo owners] use cases,” said Nexxiot’s Lund. “We’re still at the foot of the mountain as an industry.” According to Hapag-Lloyd, its product will be differentiated in a few ways. “The material difference lies in two main dimensions: first, our inland ETA prediction will use the container GPS data — which is available independent from which route the container is traveling on or which trucker/rail company is currently moving the box,” said Olaf Habert, who leads the program at Hapag-Lloyd. “Second, we are deploying purpose-built prediction algorithms for container transportation across all modes of transport,” Habert added. “Therefore, we are targeting for our ETA prediction for inland destinations to be accurate within a couple of hours.” The bigger question is whether, via smart containers, ocean carriers are able break into what for them has been an elusive value-added logistics market. Maersk has embraced that strategy fully, with mixed results, through its integrator strategy. According to the Roland Berger study, “The shipping industry, characterized by highly volatile freight rates, has struggled to monetize value-added services, often absorbing their costs into global ocean freight.” Will IoT containers meet the same fate? Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.Senior Technology Editor Eric Johnson contributed to this analysis. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd is testing whether a major investment in container sensors deployed on its two-million-unit container fleet can take cargo visibility, a longtime source of frustration to shippers, to a new level. That bet comes as container lines continue to struggle to commercialize such investments by charging shippers for more accurate and continuous location and condition data. “The smart container industry has faced challenges in scaling due to [the] lack of customers’ willingness to pay for the additional service, and carriers’ difficulties in justifying the internal [return on investment],” said a study by consultancy Roland Berger published in November. Hapag-Lloyd is trying to change this paradigm by betting it can extract economic value for itself through smart containers in the form of improved fleet utilization, thereby de-risking the uptake — or lack thereof — from customers. “What carriers do with visibility operationally will justify their investment initially, enabling the subsequent pursuit of the other commercial use case categories,” said Erik Lund, managing director for maritime and logistics at Nexxiot, which, along with Orbcomm, supplies the internet-of-things devices used by Hapag-Lloyd. The return on investment for a carrier, excluding revenue from customers, can come from multiple sources, including reducing empty repositioning costs if boxes can be more easily redirected to the next user versus having to flow through a depot. A carrier can also use smart containers to better position empties where they expect demand to materialize, thus being in a better place to accept spot bookings, theoretically at a more competitive cost than other lines because they don’t need to move that empty after receiving a booking request. “If I have much more accurate information about where my empty is I am going to get greater utilization out of my container fleet overall,” said Curtis Spencer, CEO of Bloodhound Tracking Devices, a subscription-based IoT device provider to the industry. But even if an acceptable return on investment is achieved through improved asset utilization, it still leaves unanswered the question of whether smart containers can produce a breakthrough in visibility valuable enough for shippers that significant numbers would be willing to pay for it. The question boils down to this: Will a continuously emitting IoT device attached to the outside of a container create an accurate and consistent enough data flow that it can drive more meaningful decisions versus milestone-based visibility methods long criticized for inaccurate and incomplete data? With Hapag-Lloyd having installed tracking devices on 90% of its container fleet (with a goal to reach 100% “shortly”), and this summer rolling out a predictive ETA service for shippers, the premise will soon be put to the test. Even if the data is good enough, scale, at least currently, is still a limitation. Hapag-Lloyd is only one carrier, with Zim Integrated Shipping Services and Ocean Network Express having announced similar plans. And standards don’t yet exist for smart containers to transmit while aboard the ships of alliance partners, according to the Digital Container Shipping Association (DCSA). Other carriers such as Mediterranean Shipping Co., the world’s largest, are using smart containers selectively in reefer and to combat drug smuggling in the wake of the 2019 cocaine seizure aboard an MSC ship in Philadelphia. MSC’s use of Traxens is also available for shippers on an ad hoc basis if they want continuous premium tracking, but it is used sparingly. Lack of ‘transformative outcomes’ Ocean visibility made progress in recent years with the advent of niche specialists such as project44 and FourKites, which aggregate data feeds from multiple sources for customers. But both companies have recently appeared to de-emphasize visibility as their core product propositions amid larger questions about overall value creation. As previously reported by the Journal of Commerce, the more than $1.4 billion of venture capital invested into freight visibility providers over the last five years has not translated into transformative outcomes for users. A different approach — sensors attached to the cargo or the pallet inside the container — has found a market in shipper-specific scenarios for high-value or sensitive cargoes, including electronics and pharma, but faces a reverse logistics challenge in needing to be removed and re-delivered after each transit. “We have not seen a mass scale adoption for broader logistics [beneficial cargo owners] use cases,” said Nexxiot’s Lund. “We’re still at the foot of the mountain as an industry.” According to Hapag-Lloyd, its product will be differentiated in a few ways. “The material difference lies in two main dimensions: first, our inland ETA prediction will use the container GPS data — which is available independent from which route the container is traveling on or which trucker/rail company is currently moving the box,” said Olaf Habert, who leads the program at Hapag-Lloyd. “Second, we are deploying purpose-built prediction algorithms for container transportation across all modes of transport,” Habert added. “Therefore, we are targeting for our ETA prediction for inland destinations to be accurate within a couple of hours.” The bigger question is whether, via smart containers, ocean carriers are able break into what for them has been an elusive value-added logistics market. Maersk has embraced that strategy fully, with mixed results, through its integrator strategy. According to the Roland Berger study, “The shipping industry, characterized by highly volatile freight rates, has struggled to monetize value-added services, often absorbing their costs into global ocean freight.” Will IoT containers meet the same fate? Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .Senior Technology Editor Eric Johnson contributed to this analysis.

Carriers forge new paths in ongoing quest to monetize visibility investments

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 15,000-square-foot, 37-dock-door facility is the latest example of how LTL carriers are expanding into drayage, container handling and global supply chains. </div>

The 15,000-square-foot, 37-dock-door facility is the latest example of how LTL carriers are expanding into drayage, container handling and global supply chains.

<div class="phx-topic">US less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier Pitt Ohio is bridging the gap between domestic and international freight by opening its first marine terminal in Norfolk, Virginia. The 15,000-square-foot, 37-dock-door facility is the latest example of how LTL carriers are <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-import-disruption-opens-up-ltl-transload-opportunities-5249857">expanding into drayage</a>, container handling and global supply chains. It is a new direction for trucking companies looking to route more freight into their networks. From the Norfolk terminal, Pittsburgh-based Pitt Ohio will coordinate inland transportation, customs clearance and related services, the company said in a statement Tuesday. Pitt Ohio is also a non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO,). The 14th-largest US LTL carrier in 2024, Pitt Ohio said it will use its own chassis to maintain control over shipments for importers and exporters while integrating maritime, inland transportation and warehousing. The Norfolk terminal has been several years in the making. Pitt Ohio, which has been hauling regional LTL freight since 1979, was <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/disruption-forcing-us-importers-to-take-greater-control-of-landside-logistics-5246609">drawn into the drayage business</a> during the COVID-19 pandemic, when shipper customers turned to the company for help. The pandemic saw increased interest in transloading, which requires the type of cross-dock operation that has sustained LTL carriers since the 1920s. In addition to Pitt Ohio, carriers such as Estes Express Lines, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/averitt-connects-teu-to-ltl-market-in-houston-5207737">Averitt</a> and A. Duie Pyle are building and opening terminals near seaports. LTL freight is still primarily sourced from domestic industrial manufacturers, but e-commerce and the shrinking size of shipments are driving more freight toward LTL. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier Pitt Ohio is bridging the gap between domestic and international freight by opening its first marine terminal in Norfolk, Virginia. The 15,000-square-foot, 37-dock-door facility is the latest example of how LTL carriers are expanding into drayage , container handling and global supply chains. It is a new direction for trucking companies looking to route more freight into their networks. From the Norfolk terminal, Pittsburgh-based Pitt Ohio will coordinate inland transportation, customs clearance and related services, the company said in a statement Tuesday. Pitt Ohio is also a non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO,). The 14th-largest US LTL carrier in 2024, Pitt Ohio said it will use its own chassis to maintain control over shipments for importers and exporters while integrating maritime, inland transportation and warehousing. The Norfolk terminal has been several years in the making. Pitt Ohio, which has been hauling regional LTL freight since 1979, was drawn into the drayage business during the COVID-19 pandemic, when shipper customers turned to the company for help. The pandemic saw increased interest in transloading, which requires the type of cross-dock operation that has sustained LTL carriers since the 1920s. In addition to Pitt Ohio, carriers such as Estes Express Lines, Averitt and A. Duie Pyle are building and opening terminals near seaports. LTL freight is still primarily sourced from domestic industrial manufacturers, but e-commerce and the shrinking size of shipments are driving more freight toward LTL. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

LTL trucker Pitt Ohio opens marine terminal near Norfolk port

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

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

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

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

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The new global trade environment has significantly increased supply chain challenges, notably the arbitrary nature of the implementation of US tariffs.</div>

The new global trade environment has significantly increased supply chain challenges, notably the arbitrary nature of the implementation of US tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">This commentary is not specifically about tariffs, or about capacity shortages or surpluses or what to expect if your shipment happens to be transferred to a Chinese vessel or service — whatever that means today. Instead, it considers a related question: How do supply chain practitioners balance demand and supply planning in the current environment of uncertainty? To start, let’s assume you are a medium-size importer into the US from any Asian country subject to tariffs nominally above 20%. At this stage, you have called on the more recent lessons from the first term of Donald Trump and from the COVID-19 pandemic. These will include, but are not limited to, some form of cost-sharing of the increase, somewhere between you absorbing it all to the supplier wearing the whole lot. If you are buying in US dollars, then your supplier is already suffering and will have less room to maneuver. To counter this, a temporary option could be to switch to buying in your supplier’s local currency. This will have some appeal to your supplier as they are possibly overweight in the dollar and have actual costs in local currency. A lot will depend on your view of the trajectory of the dollar. However, two notes of caution: You will still have transaction costs when converting from the US dollar to the local currency, and depending on the country you source from, you may face capital controls if you need to get money back. Furthermore, changing back and forth in currencies has administrative risks with potential payment delays and errors. No doubt there will be a suggestion of suppliers providing lower-than-correct value invoices and some form of offline reconciliation. But doing the right thing in the face of malevolence has its longer-term reward. And besides, the penalties do not merit the risk. <h3>‘Roulette game’ </h3>You will have reduced your destination-side inventory to the degree of ensuring safety stocks. If you managed to get ahead of the tariff increases, you will be sitting on volume that requires warehousing. But as you have avoided tariffs to some degree, this will maintain your competitiveness — despite the increased warehousing and inventory working capital cost — assuming your competitors source from outside the US However, the new environment has significantly increased challenges. First, the rate at which tariff levels are changing makes supply planning a roulette game. This is primarily due to the arbitrary nature of their implementation, unlike previous changes that gave some degree of leeway for orders already in process and/or on the water. Equally challenging is the rollercoaster nature of the degree of tariff moves both up and down. Finally, the tactical response <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">to avoid Chinese-built, -owned, and -operated ships</a> will be a nightmare for all logisticians. This is particularly important because carrier and vessel choice is largely transactional at an operational level based on guidance from sourcing, so the likelihood of an error costing thousands is high. Where does that leave beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) in deciding which tactics to adopt? Frankly, for the foreseeable future, you will need to choose your poison. The somewhat binary options of manufacturing and storing at origin have appeal, particularly if the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-volumes-fall-on-trans-pacific-as-us-de-minimis-changes-loom-5993599">removal of de minimis</a> has a projected impact of freeing up air freight space, allowing cheaper (but not cheap) delivery for urgent orders. Alternatively, having the right stocks in place at the right time will do much for customer relations and, intuitively, result in less likelihood of discounting. The downside will be increased costs that will depend on the cost of the tariff versus your sale price. This will mean you either absorb the increase, thus reducing margins and profitability, or try to pass it on to consumers. The final kicker to this issue is consumer demand. With quite consistent indicators from many sources — Goldman Sachs, the International Monetary Fund, the University of Michigan and others— indicating at best a slowdown in all economies, the likelihood of stagflation emerging in the US, or at best/worst the return of inflation, is actually your greatest risk. Because if consumers truly defer consumption expecting lower prices through price reduction and/or discounting to stimulate demand (stagflation), or cannot afford to spend or increase credit card debt (inflation), then these two factors will cause greater headaches than your deliberations on supply planning. John McCauley, formerly a long-standing 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>

This commentary is not specifically about tariffs, or about capacity shortages or surpluses or what to expect if your shipment happens to be transferred to a Chinese vessel or service — whatever that means today. Instead, it considers a related question: How do supply chain practitioners balance demand and supply planning in the current environment of uncertainty? To start, let’s assume you are a medium-size importer into the US from any Asian country subject to tariffs nominally above 20%. At this stage, you have called on the more recent lessons from the first term of Donald Trump and from the COVID-19 pandemic. These will include, but are not limited to, some form of cost-sharing of the increase, somewhere between you absorbing it all to the supplier wearing the whole lot. If you are buying in US dollars, then your supplier is already suffering and will have less room to maneuver. To counter this, a temporary option could be to switch to buying in your supplier’s local currency. This will have some appeal to your supplier as they are possibly overweight in the dollar and have actual costs in local currency. A lot will depend on your view of the trajectory of the dollar. However, two notes of caution: You will still have transaction costs when converting from the US dollar to the local currency, and depending on the country you source from, you may face capital controls if you need to get money back. Furthermore, changing back and forth in currencies has administrative risks with potential payment delays and errors. No doubt there will be a suggestion of suppliers providing lower-than-correct value invoices and some form of offline reconciliation. But doing the right thing in the face of malevolence has its longer-term reward. And besides, the penalties do not merit the risk. ‘Roulette game’ You will have reduced your destination-side inventory to the degree of ensuring safety stocks. If you managed to get ahead of the tariff increases, you will be sitting on volume that requires warehousing. But as you have avoided tariffs to some degree, this will maintain your competitiveness — despite the increased warehousing and inventory working capital cost — assuming your competitors source from outside the US However, the new environment has significantly increased challenges. First, the rate at which tariff levels are changing makes supply planning a roulette game. This is primarily due to the arbitrary nature of their implementation, unlike previous changes that gave some degree of leeway for orders already in process and/or on the water. Equally challenging is the rollercoaster nature of the degree of tariff moves both up and down. Finally, the tactical response to avoid Chinese-built, -owned, and -operated ships will be a nightmare for all logisticians. This is particularly important because carrier and vessel choice is largely transactional at an operational level based on guidance from sourcing, so the likelihood of an error costing thousands is high. Where does that leave beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) in deciding which tactics to adopt? Frankly, for the foreseeable future, you will need to choose your poison. The somewhat binary options of manufacturing and storing at origin have appeal, particularly if the removal of de minimis has a projected impact of freeing up air freight space, allowing cheaper (but not cheap) delivery for urgent orders. Alternatively, having the right stocks in place at the right time will do much for customer relations and, intuitively, result in less likelihood of discounting. The downside will be increased costs that will depend on the cost of the tariff versus your sale price. This will mean you either absorb the increase, thus reducing margins and profitability, or try to pass it on to consumers. The final kicker to this issue is consumer demand. With quite consistent indicators from many sources — Goldman Sachs, the International Monetary Fund, the University of Michigan and others— indicating at best a slowdown in all economies, the likelihood of stagflation emerging in the US, or at best/worst the return of inflation, is actually your greatest risk. Because if consumers truly defer consumption expecting lower prices through price reduction and/or discounting to stimulate demand (stagflation), or cannot afford to spend or increase credit card debt (inflation), then these two factors will cause greater headaches than your deliberations on supply planning. John McCauley, formerly a long-standing vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Navigating the current supply chain is a matter of choosing your poison

Local container dwell time

Rail container dwell time

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) calculates local-delivery container dwell times at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach using the number of inbound loaded containers out-gated at each marine terminal by truck during the month as well as the average dwell time in days for those out-gated containers. It calculates average rail container dwell based on the time a container sits on the marine terminal at the ports after it is discharged from the vessel and before it is loaded. [PMSA](https://pmsaship.com)

Los Angeles-Long Beach truck and rail dwell times (PMSA)

Los Angeles-Long Beach terminal and rail dwell times (PMSA) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Forwarders expect congestion and container shortages to worsen in the next few weeks as carriers redeploy vessels to trans-Pacific services from Asia-Europe trades to meet increased demand from shippers.</div>

Forwarders expect congestion and container shortages to worsen in the next few weeks as carriers redeploy vessels to trans-Pacific services from Asia-Europe trades to meet increased demand from shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">A rush of cargo in the eastbound trans-Pacific in the aftermath of the 90-day tariff cooldown between the US and China is starting to create vessel congestion and equipment shortages at Asian ports, especially in China, carriers and forwarders say. Forwarders expect congestion and container shortages to worsen in the next few weeks as carriers redeploy vessels to trans-Pacific services from Asia-Europe trades to meet the increased demand from shippers. The port congestion in China, not helped by occasional bad weather, is taking out functional capacity at a time when it is needed most. “Current delays at east and north China ports range from three to seven days depending on the carrier and trade lane,” a spokesperson for FIBS Logistics told the Journal of Commerce. “The situation remains fluid, and there are growing concerns congestion will worsen if more vessels are diverted from Europe to the US in June, as we’ve heard is the plan for some lines…” Congestion at Shanghai has led shippers and forwarders to divert cargo to alternative ports, especially Ningbo, which is now starting to lead to congestion and equipment shortages there, sources said. “North China ports are facing increased waiting times due to berth congestion, further impacted by intermittent port closures caused by strong winds and dense fog,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a customer advisory on Thursday. The carrier said vessels are waiting up to 72 hours to berth at Qingdao and at Shanghai’s main Yangshan offshore port complex due to “heavy vessel bunching and congestion.” Waiting time at Ningbo was up to 36 hours depending on the terminal. There are also delays of up to 72 hours at Pusan Newport International Terminal in South Korea and up to 36 hours at Singapore due to vessel bunching, the Hapag-Lloyd advisory said. Ocean Network Express (ONE) said congestion is also plaguing ports in Japan, especially Tokyo and Yokohama, and was causing lengthy delays and port omissions on some long-haul and intra-Asia services. <h3>Congestion stretches throughout Asia </h3>Kuehne + Nagel said it expected congestion and equipment challenges in China “due to the backlog of trans-Pacific cargo being shipped in the next weeks.” The logistics giant, in updates Monday on its SeaExplorer visibility platform, also highlighted congestion that was causing delays and disruption at ports across Asia. These include Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Xiamen and Nanshan in southern China; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Laem Chabang, Thailand; Manila in the Philippines; and Port Klang in Malaysia, where yard utilization is 90%. Highlighting the tight supply of containers, FIBS Logistics said CMA CGM and other carriers have started allocating containers to shippers in Shanghai and Ningbo based on available space and rate levels, “which may create selective shortages.” Maersk is particularly affected by equipment shortages in Ningbo, while “HMM is also reportedly controlling equipment release to match vessel space in Ningbo,” the FIBS spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. Highlighting the surge in cargo, Hapag-Lloyd said last Wednesday <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/china-us-ocean-bookings-surge-since-weekend-trade-deal-hapag-lloyd-6004653">it had seen an increase of more than 50% in China-US cargo bookings</a> since the two countries signed a preliminary trade deal slashing tariffs for 90 days following meetings on May 11–12. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

A rush of cargo in the eastbound trans-Pacific in the aftermath of the 90-day tariff cooldown between the US and China is starting to create vessel congestion and equipment shortages at Asian ports, especially in China, carriers and forwarders say. Forwarders expect congestion and container shortages to worsen in the next few weeks as carriers redeploy vessels to trans-Pacific services from Asia-Europe trades to meet the increased demand from shippers. The port congestion in China, not helped by occasional bad weather, is taking out functional capacity at a time when it is needed most. “Current delays at east and north China ports range from three to seven days depending on the carrier and trade lane,” a spokesperson for FIBS Logistics told the Journal of Commerce. “The situation remains fluid, and there are growing concerns congestion will worsen if more vessels are diverted from Europe to the US in June, as we’ve heard is the plan for some lines…” Congestion at Shanghai has led shippers and forwarders to divert cargo to alternative ports, especially Ningbo, which is now starting to lead to congestion and equipment shortages there, sources said. “North China ports are facing increased waiting times due to berth congestion, further impacted by intermittent port closures caused by strong winds and dense fog,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a customer advisory on Thursday. The carrier said vessels are waiting up to 72 hours to berth at Qingdao and at Shanghai’s main Yangshan offshore port complex due to “heavy vessel bunching and congestion.” Waiting time at Ningbo was up to 36 hours depending on the terminal. There are also delays of up to 72 hours at Pusan Newport International Terminal in South Korea and up to 36 hours at Singapore due to vessel bunching, the Hapag-Lloyd advisory said. Ocean Network Express (ONE) said congestion is also plaguing ports in Japan, especially Tokyo and Yokohama, and was causing lengthy delays and port omissions on some long-haul and intra-Asia services. Congestion stretches throughout Asia Kuehne + Nagel said it expected congestion and equipment challenges in China “due to the backlog of trans-Pacific cargo being shipped in the next weeks.” The logistics giant, in updates Monday on its SeaExplorer visibility platform, also highlighted congestion that was causing delays and disruption at ports across Asia. These include Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Xiamen and Nanshan in southern China; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Laem Chabang, Thailand; Manila in the Philippines; and Port Klang in Malaysia, where yard utilization is 90%. Highlighting the tight supply of containers, FIBS Logistics said CMA CGM and other carriers have started allocating containers to shippers in Shanghai and Ningbo based on available space and rate levels, “which may create selective shortages.” Maersk is particularly affected by equipment shortages in Ningbo, while “HMM is also reportedly controlling equipment release to match vessel space in Ningbo,” the FIBS spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. Highlighting the surge in cargo, Hapag-Lloyd said last Wednesday it had seen an increase of more than 50% in China-US cargo bookings since the two countries signed a preliminary trade deal slashing tariffs for 90 days following meetings on May 11–12. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

International ports

US tariff-linked cargo rush causes port congestion, box shortages in China

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carriers want to raise prices by more than 50% in a bid to stem the slide in rates that began at the end of December and is showing no signs of slowing.</div>

The carriers want to raise prices by more than 50% in a bid to stem the slide in rates that began at the end of December and is showing no signs of slowing.

<div class="phx-topic">Excess capacity and weakening demand continue to exert downward pressure on Asia-North Europe container rates with the various indices showing the spot market has lost more than 60% of its value since the beginning of the year. Several carriers have announced rate increases for more than $3,000 per FEU from June 1 to try to slow the spot market slide but may struggle to find much support in an oversupplied market. CMA CGM will be setting its freight all kinds (FAK) rate from Asia to North Europe at $3,100 per FEU on June 1, while MSC and Hapag-Lloyd will set their rate on that route at $3,200/FEU. MSC and Hapag-Lloyd are also raising their Asia-Mediterranean FAK prices, with MSC rates of about $5,000/FEU and Hapag-Lloyd at $4,500/FEU. The asking prices are significantly higher than current rate levels. Average spot rates from Asia to North Europe on May 15 were $1,994/FEU, down from just over $5,000/FEU on Dec. 31, while Asia-Mediterranean rates of $3,156/FEU were down 42% so far this year, according to the rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global recorded spot rates from Asia to North Europe at $1,600/FEU this week, an almost 70% decline since the beginning of January. Asia-Mediterranean rates this week were at $2,700/FEU, a drop of 50% since the start of the year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="aa85df16-b8fe-4e63-9181-65cba329e464"></dynamic-object></div>The supply chain director for a Germany-based Asia-Europe shipper said he was seeing offers in the market as low as $1,200/FEU, which was putting pressure on carriers to slow the decline. "I can understand the pressure carriers are under, and they are asking for more cargo but many BCOs (beneficial cargo owners) have declining cargo flows, so the market is really imbalanced,” the source said, adding that there was little chance the rate hikes would stick. “Our demand is the same as it was at this time last year, which is a slack period. The rate increases will not be 100% but may stabilize falling prices. Whether there will be another advanced peak season is impossible to gauge, but everything is possible in this market.” <h3>Mismatch between supply and demand </h3>Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, said the mismatch between offered capacity and demand was keeping spot rates under pressure. “While rates and demand are going up on trans-Pacific, spot rates are sliding into Europe,” he told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The container shipping orderbook of 8.6 million TEUs in capacity is about 27% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just under 1 million TEUs in capacity will be delivered this year, most of it large ships that can only be deployed on Asia-Europe, while only 4,000 TEUs are set to be scrapped by the industry this year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b2f271aa-d66e-49e2-9bc8-99469f7fc20e"></dynamic-object></div>Only 6.5% of the available capacity is being blanked in May while carriers are deploying a record 1.12 million TEUs in the month, according to data from ocean visibility provider eeSea. Sand noted that the tariff cuts on the China-US trade following a 90-day deal between Washington and Beijing last weekend has “changed the picture” with some cargo diverted from the trans-Pacific to Asia-Europe. ”One month of ‘frustrated cargo’ that didn’t go from China to the US and is on its way to Europe, the Middle East and South America. The congested northern European ports will be facing a rush in June on the back of this,” Sand added. North Europe’s largest port gateways <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/no-end-to-the-congestion-choking-gateway-ports-in-north-europe-5995853">continue to struggle with persistent congestion</a> that has delayed vessels and hampered container operations at the hubs for months. The reasons include full container yards, port strikes and slowdowns, labor shortages because of several public holidays in May, crane engineering works in some terminals and changing carrier alliance networks. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Excess capacity and weakening demand continue to exert downward pressure on Asia-North Europe container rates with the various indices showing the spot market has lost more than 60% of its value since the beginning of the year. Several carriers have announced rate increases for more than $3,000 per FEU from June 1 to try to slow the spot market slide but may struggle to find much support in an oversupplied market. CMA CGM will be setting its freight all kinds (FAK) rate from Asia to North Europe at $3,100 per FEU on June 1, while MSC and Hapag-Lloyd will set their rate on that route at $3,200/FEU. MSC and Hapag-Lloyd are also raising their Asia-Mediterranean FAK prices, with MSC rates of about $5,000/FEU and Hapag-Lloyd at $4,500/FEU. The asking prices are significantly higher than current rate levels. Average spot rates from Asia to North Europe on May 15 were $1,994/FEU, down from just over $5,000/FEU on Dec. 31, while Asia-Mediterranean rates of $3,156/FEU were down 42% so far this year, according to the rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global recorded spot rates from Asia to North Europe at $1,600/FEU this week, an almost 70% decline since the beginning of January. Asia-Mediterranean rates this week were at $2,700/FEU, a drop of 50% since the start of the year. The supply chain director for a Germany-based Asia-Europe shipper said he was seeing offers in the market as low as $1,200/FEU, which was putting pressure on carriers to slow the decline. "I can understand the pressure carriers are under, and they are asking for more cargo but many BCOs (beneficial cargo owners) have declining cargo flows, so the market is really imbalanced,” the source said, adding that there was little chance the rate hikes would stick. “Our demand is the same as it was at this time last year, which is a slack period. The rate increases will not be 100% but may stabilize falling prices. Whether there will be another advanced peak season is impossible to gauge, but everything is possible in this market.” Mismatch between supply and demand Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, said the mismatch between offered capacity and demand was keeping spot rates under pressure. “While rates and demand are going up on trans-Pacific, spot rates are sliding into Europe,” he told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The container shipping orderbook of 8.6 million TEUs in capacity is about 27% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just under 1 million TEUs in capacity will be delivered this year, most of it large ships that can only be deployed on Asia-Europe, while only 4,000 TEUs are set to be scrapped by the industry this year. Only 6.5% of the available capacity is being blanked in May while carriers are deploying a record 1.12 million TEUs in the month, according to data from ocean visibility provider eeSea. Sand noted that the tariff cuts on the China-US trade following a 90-day deal between Washington and Beijing last weekend has “changed the picture” with some cargo diverted from the trans-Pacific to Asia-Europe. ”One month of ‘frustrated cargo’ that didn’t go from China to the US and is on its way to Europe, the Middle East and South America. The congested northern European ports will be facing a rush in June on the back of this,” Sand added. North Europe’s largest port gateways continue to struggle with persistent congestion that has delayed vessels and hampered container operations at the hubs for months. The reasons include full container yards, port strikes and slowdowns, labor shortages because of several public holidays in May, crane engineering works in some terminals and changing carrier alliance networks. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

Ocean carriers line up hefty rate hikes on oversupplied Asia-Europe trade

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container lines are looking to capitalize on a ramp-up in Asia-US bookings during the 90-day tariff reduction that followed Monday’s deal between the Trump administration and China.</div>

Container lines are looking to capitalize on a ramp-up in Asia-US bookings during the 90-day tariff reduction that followed Monday’s deal between the Trump administration and China.

<div class="phx-topic">Major container lines are seeking spot rates on service from China to the US West Coast that are more than double the current level as they look to capitalize on an anticipated surge of volume triggered by a 90-day pause in the steepest US tariffs. Container spot rates are already spiking following the Monday announcement, and if carriers are successful in imposing a combination of general rate increases (GRIs) and peak season surcharges (PSSs) set to take effect June 1, pricing would jump to approximately $6,000 per FEU to the West Coast and $7,000 per FEU to the East Coast. GRIs apply to all shippers regardless of size, while PSSs are only imposed on smaller shippers that don’t have agreements with carriers prohibiting their use. Momentum appears to be on the carriers’ side. Hapag-Lloyd said it has seen <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/china-us-ocean-bookings-surge-since-weekend-trade-deal-hapag-lloyd-6004653">a 50% increase in bookings</a> from China to the US this week, while forwarders have reported jumps as high as 100%. Given the short window of the agreement, and the need to ship fall and holiday merchandise before tariffs may increase if the deal falls apart, forwarders report that bookings are soaring. “It’s shades of 2024,” Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at forwarder DSV, told the Journal of Commerce, referring to last summer, when container spot rates jumped to upward of $8,000 per FEU to the West Coast during acrimonious dockworker contract negotiations on the East and Gulf coasts. As of Wednesday, average spot rates from Asia to the West Coast rose to $2,567 per FEU, up from $1,600 per FEU at the end of March, while Asia-East Coast pricing rose to $3,567 per FEU from $2,600 per FEU during the same period, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Last year, spot rates <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-to-deploy-extra-loaders-to-los-angeles-long-beach-amid-import-surge-5714861">peaked at $8,133 per FEU to the West Coast</a> and $10,133 per FEU to the East Coast in the week of July 5. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="db2a41f2-e1d4-498c-bda1-401715921660"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping have filed spot rates of $6,000 per FEU starting June 1. Another round of increases is poised for June 15, with Hapag-Lloyd, MSC and CMA CGM set to increase rates to $8,000 per FEU, according to rate notices from the carriers. “Of course, these are just their filings,” noted a forwarder who asked not to be identified. “We will see what levels they really pass on once we get to these dates.” <h3>Bookings from China surge </h3>The carrier rate increases appear to be supported by a spike in bookings since the US and China announced an agreement that reduced US tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% for at least the next 90 days. “There’s definitely been a ramp up in orders during this 90-day window,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. Khachatryan explained that importers appear to be in a rush to get their shipments into the US while the 30% tariff on China is in effect. They are concerned that after 90 days, if a permanent agreement is not reached, the tariffs could shoot back up. “Everyone seems to be concerned with the 90-day window,” Khachatryan said. Revelyst, an importer of outdoor apparel, paused its purchase orders with factories in China in April, said John Pace, senior manager of global logistics. Now, the company is prioritizing those shipments that are ready to move, to be followed by shipments that will depart in the coming weeks as factories ramp up production. A carrier executive who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce that factories in China should be able to quickly increase production as most vendors paused or slowed down production after the 145% duty went into effect in early April, rather than completely shutting down and laying off staff. Similar to Khachatryan, the carrier executive said importers are frontloading as much merchandise as they can. “They have to ship now in case there is another tariff increase in August,” the source said. However, forwarders and importers say the huge increases in spot rates and surcharges that carriers announced over the past few days would put a large dent in the savings they had anticipated from the tariff cuts. “We are being careful,” Pace said. “Shipping rates are certainly a factor in our decisions.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Major container lines are seeking spot rates on service from China to the US West Coast that are more than double the current level as they look to capitalize on an anticipated surge of volume triggered by a 90-day pause in the steepest US tariffs. Container spot rates are already spiking following the Monday announcement, and if carriers are successful in imposing a combination of general rate increases (GRIs) and peak season surcharges (PSSs) set to take effect June 1, pricing would jump to approximately $6,000 per FEU to the West Coast and $7,000 per FEU to the East Coast. GRIs apply to all shippers regardless of size, while PSSs are only imposed on smaller shippers that don’t have agreements with carriers prohibiting their use. Momentum appears to be on the carriers’ side. Hapag-Lloyd said it has seen a 50% increase in bookings from China to the US this week, while forwarders have reported jumps as high as 100%. Given the short window of the agreement, and the need to ship fall and holiday merchandise before tariffs may increase if the deal falls apart, forwarders report that bookings are soaring. “It’s shades of 2024,” Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at forwarder DSV, told the Journal of Commerce, referring to last summer, when container spot rates jumped to upward of $8,000 per FEU to the West Coast during acrimonious dockworker contract negotiations on the East and Gulf coasts. As of Wednesday, average spot rates from Asia to the West Coast rose to $2,567 per FEU, up from $1,600 per FEU at the end of March, while Asia-East Coast pricing rose to $3,567 per FEU from $2,600 per FEU during the same period, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Last year, spot rates peaked at $8,133 per FEU to the West Coast and $10,133 per FEU to the East Coast in the week of July 5. Carriers Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping have filed spot rates of $6,000 per FEU starting June 1. Another round of increases is poised for June 15, with Hapag-Lloyd, MSC and CMA CGM set to increase rates to $8,000 per FEU, according to rate notices from the carriers. “Of course, these are just their filings,” noted a forwarder who asked not to be identified. “We will see what levels they really pass on once we get to these dates.” Bookings from China surge The carrier rate increases appear to be supported by a spike in bookings since the US and China announced an agreement that reduced US tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% for at least the next 90 days. “There’s definitely been a ramp up in orders during this 90-day window,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. Khachatryan explained that importers appear to be in a rush to get their shipments into the US while the 30% tariff on China is in effect. They are concerned that after 90 days, if a permanent agreement is not reached, the tariffs could shoot back up. “Everyone seems to be concerned with the 90-day window,” Khachatryan said. Revelyst, an importer of outdoor apparel, paused its purchase orders with factories in China in April, said John Pace, senior manager of global logistics. Now, the company is prioritizing those shipments that are ready to move, to be followed by shipments that will depart in the coming weeks as factories ramp up production. A carrier executive who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce that factories in China should be able to quickly increase production as most vendors paused or slowed down production after the 145% duty went into effect in early April, rather than completely shutting down and laying off staff. Similar to Khachatryan, the carrier executive said importers are frontloading as much merchandise as they can. “They have to ship now in case there is another tariff increase in August,” the source said. However, forwarders and importers say the huge increases in spot rates and surcharges that carriers announced over the past few days would put a large dent in the savings they had anticipated from the tariff cuts. “We are being careful,” Pace said. “Shipping rates are certainly a factor in our decisions.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific carriers announce massive June rate hikes

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code MDRW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE

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 MDW25 at checkout to save 25% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

Use code MDW25 at checkout and save 25% on any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Upgrade Subscription

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW25 at checkout to save 25% on first year of any annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW25 at checkout and save 25% on any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDRW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Intermodal providers might see a small bullwhip effect, in which international volume declines in May and June but rebounds in July and August as shipments delayed due to now-paused tariffs on Chinese goods begin arriving in Southern California.</div>

Intermodal providers might see a small bullwhip effect, in which international volume declines in May and June but rebounds in July and August as shipments delayed due to now-paused tariffs on Chinese goods begin arriving in Southern California.

<div class="phx-topic">Western US Class I railroads say they are preparing for a potential midsummer surge of imports from China following a 90-day suspension of steeper US tariffs on Chinese-made goods. To avoid a repeat of past breakdowns, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) are ensuring they have sufficient staff, locomotives and equipment at critical terminals across the US. Both railroads outlined strategies to handle a likely uptick in cargo, including building longer trains, combining different train types, constructing trains differently and creating special trains temporarily. BNSF and UP say it is not clear yet how strong the rebound will be, with some ocean carriers and forwarders reporting a surge in booking of upward of 50%. “The month of June is where we think that air pocket will hit [most],” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of intermodal, told the Journal of Commerce. “Coming out of the Fourth of July is when what’s being put on vessels now would all start to hit. In the months of July and August, largely speaking.” UP CEO Jim Vena said the lull in volumes, sparked by US President Donald Trump raising tariffs on Chinese goods to 145% in early April before <a href="https://word-edit.officeapps.live.com/we/Eastbound%20trans-Pac%20spot%20rates%20in%20revival%20mode%20in%20wake%20of%20US-China%20trade%20deal%20%7C%20Journal%20of%20Commerce">reducing them to 30% Monday</a>, has begun to show in the numbers. “We can react [with] locomotives very fast; we have 500 of them parked, ready to go,” Vena said at the Bank of America Industrials Conference Wednesday. “We had a 30% increase in international intermodal last year, and we handled it. We’ve built a railroad that has some capacity to be able to flex.” <h3>A collaborative effort </h3>BNSF is positioning empty railcars and locomotives in California, Arizona, and Washington, while staying in close contact with ocean carriers, drayage companies, and third-party terminal operators such as ITS ConGlobal and Parsec. “Our terminal operators are in all the conversations; they are not cutting staff during this lull,” Gabriel said. “If we can give an extra vacation or two in June, let’s do that. But let’s also know it’s going to be a short-lived lull, and we must quickly snap back. It’s important to protect the business and keep it on the railroad versus trucking.” Those conversations also include chassis providers. Gabriel said he’s spoken with the CEOs of major providers such as DCLI, Flexi-Van Leasing, and TRAC Intermodal about what to expect in July and August. To provide a service with minimal dwell, both railroads are focusing on increasing train lengths and reconfiguring train designs to optimize throughput. During quiet periods, a standard international intermodal train may run 1.5 miles long. But in peak periods, railroads can stretch those trains to more than 2 miles. However, crane operators can only lift a finite number of containers per hour, which could lead to extended unloading times, impacting the ability of inland terminals to handle a continuous flow of incoming and outgoing trains. “We can pivot from a lull to a surge without disrupting the network,” UP COO Eric Gehringer said during an April 24 earnings call. “The tools we have today let us do that in hours or days, not weeks like in the past.” BNSF and UP could also send trains directly to smaller inland cities — e.g., Cincinnati, Houston or St. Louis — that normally would be part of a larger train going to Chicago, Dallas, Memphis or Kansas City. “We may run direct point-to-point trains, and I really like that because it reduces cargo transit times,” Gabriel explained. “It could also be that instead of one Chicago train a day, we run two trains. If you didn’t make the noon train, no worries, you’ll be on the 4 o’clock train. That helps all destinations, but certainly those smaller markets benefit more.” With just weeks to prepare, both railroads are betting that early coordination will be enough to keep freight moving and shippers from turning to long-haul trucking as a temporary solution. “It’s the calm before the whiplash,” said a former CN intermodal operations executive who asked not to be identified. “It’s one thing to say you have stored locomotives. It’s another thing to have trained crane operators, chassis, yard labor, and truck capacity all available at the same time. That’s where things broke down in 2021.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Western US Class I railroads say they are preparing for a potential midsummer surge of imports from China following a 90-day suspension of steeper US tariffs on Chinese-made goods. To avoid a repeat of past breakdowns, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) are ensuring they have sufficient staff, locomotives and equipment at critical terminals across the US. Both railroads outlined strategies to handle a likely uptick in cargo, including building longer trains, combining different train types, constructing trains differently and creating special trains temporarily. BNSF and UP say it is not clear yet how strong the rebound will be, with some ocean carriers and forwarders reporting a surge in booking of upward of 50%. “The month of June is where we think that air pocket will hit [most],” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of intermodal, told the Journal of Commerce. “Coming out of the Fourth of July is when what’s being put on vessels now would all start to hit. In the months of July and August, largely speaking.” UP CEO Jim Vena said the lull in volumes, sparked by US President Donald Trump raising tariffs on Chinese goods to 145% in early April before reducing them to 30% Monday , has begun to show in the numbers. “We can react [with] locomotives very fast; we have 500 of them parked, ready to go,” Vena said at the Bank of America Industrials Conference Wednesday. “We had a 30% increase in international intermodal last year, and we handled it. We’ve built a railroad that has some capacity to be able to flex.” A collaborative effort BNSF is positioning empty railcars and locomotives in California, Arizona, and Washington, while staying in close contact with ocean carriers, drayage companies, and third-party terminal operators such as ITS ConGlobal and Parsec. “Our terminal operators are in all the conversations; they are not cutting staff during this lull,” Gabriel said. “If we can give an extra vacation or two in June, let’s do that. But let’s also know it’s going to be a short-lived lull, and we must quickly snap back. It’s important to protect the business and keep it on the railroad versus trucking.” Those conversations also include chassis providers. Gabriel said he’s spoken with the CEOs of major providers such as DCLI, Flexi-Van Leasing, and TRAC Intermodal about what to expect in July and August. To provide a service with minimal dwell, both railroads are focusing on increasing train lengths and reconfiguring train designs to optimize throughput. During quiet periods, a standard international intermodal train may run 1.5 miles long. But in peak periods, railroads can stretch those trains to more than 2 miles. However, crane operators can only lift a finite number of containers per hour, which could lead to extended unloading times, impacting the ability of inland terminals to handle a continuous flow of incoming and outgoing trains. “We can pivot from a lull to a surge without disrupting the network,” UP COO Eric Gehringer said during an April 24 earnings call. “The tools we have today let us do that in hours or days, not weeks like in the past.” BNSF and UP could also send trains directly to smaller inland cities — e.g., Cincinnati, Houston or St. Louis — that normally would be part of a larger train going to Chicago, Dallas, Memphis or Kansas City. “We may run direct point-to-point trains, and I really like that because it reduces cargo transit times,” Gabriel explained. “It could also be that instead of one Chicago train a day, we run two trains. If you didn’t make the noon train, no worries, you’ll be on the 4 o’clock train. That helps all destinations, but certainly those smaller markets benefit more.” With just weeks to prepare, both railroads are betting that early coordination will be enough to keep freight moving and shippers from turning to long-haul trucking as a temporary solution. “It’s the calm before the whiplash,” said a former CN intermodal operations executive who asked not to be identified. “It’s one thing to say you have stored locomotives. It’s another thing to have trained crane operators, chassis, yard labor, and truck capacity all available at the same time. That’s where things broke down in 2021.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Intermodal providers

North-American rail

BNSF, UP prepping for July cargo rebound after tariff-induced lull

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Greater interplay between US drayage and truckload markets may appear as imports fluctuate due to shifting tariff deadlines, but little impact is expected on pricing. </div>

Greater interplay between US drayage and truckload markets may appear as imports fluctuate due to shifting tariff deadlines, but little impact is expected on pricing.

<div class="phx-topic">A sooner-than-anticipated influx of US imports from China is already <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-carriers-announce-massive-june-rate-hikes-6005450">pushing up ocean container spot rates</a>, but those price increases are not expected to reach landbound drayage and truckload markets. A thick layer of excess truck capacity persists and may even be expanding, and that is likely to keep land transportation pricing in check despite US importers frontloading freight during a 90-day pause in the steepest tariffs on Chinese-made goods. “Right now, we don’t see enough capacity exits to lead us to believe that [truckload] rates are going to be higher,” even as more cargo from China arrives over the next 90 days, Sean Dehan, vice president of corporate strategy and mergers and acquisitions at Truckstop, said Friday. Truckstop, a spot market load-matching and trucking technology company, still expects some greater interplay between spot truckload and drayage in coming weeks. “Drayage drivers could effectively go into power-only mode,” meaning they could use their tractors on the spot market to haul trailers, Dehan said. “There may be some marginal drayage carriers who pop into over-the-road even as import volumes stay measured.” <h3>Supply-demand imbalance </h3>Surface freight demand has been in recession since the second quarter of 2022, and even a large increase in imports, which only account for a small portion of overall over-the-road tonnage, likely won’t be enough to resuscitate demand. “There don’t appear to be too many demand catalysts that we can point to right now,” Dehan said. “Tariffs are not going to create demand.” At the same time, truck capacity is readily available, whether at the ports or on highways. There is still about 35% more over-the-road truckload capacity available than in 2019, according to Avery Vise, vice president of trucking for FTR Transportation Intelligence. Most instances where freight activity has increased in the past few months can be attributed to frontloaded US imports. Spot market load board provider DAT Freight &amp; Analytics noted increased activity around major distribution hubs in April. “The big warehouse markets — Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix — have all seen a big influx of loads moved in April, both inbound and outbound,” Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT, told the Journal of Commerce. But that hasn’t moved spot pricing. Average US dry-van spot rates for the week ending May 10 of $1.60 per mile were up just three cents from the same week a year ago, according to DAT, while the average contract replacement rate slipped 0.5% sequentially during the same week. “Overall, we continue to observe a consistent market,” Aaron LaGanke, vice president of freight services at logistics provider AFS Logistics, said Thursday. “Minor month-to-month fluctuations in rates and volumes remain within the bounds of typical variability.” The wild card is going to be the size and extent of the rebound once fresh imports from China and other trading partners hit US ports. Demand “may be a little bit slack for four weeks, and then it will hit in June,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain at drayage brokerage ITS Logistics. “We won’t see COVID-level disruption, but it will be a lift, and it’s on the way.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A sooner-than-anticipated influx of US imports from China is already pushing up ocean container spot rates , but those price increases are not expected to reach landbound drayage and truckload markets. A thick layer of excess truck capacity persists and may even be expanding, and that is likely to keep land transportation pricing in check despite US importers frontloading freight during a 90-day pause in the steepest tariffs on Chinese-made goods. “Right now, we don’t see enough capacity exits to lead us to believe that [truckload] rates are going to be higher,” even as more cargo from China arrives over the next 90 days, Sean Dehan, vice president of corporate strategy and mergers and acquisitions at Truckstop, said Friday. Truckstop, a spot market load-matching and trucking technology company, still expects some greater interplay between spot truckload and drayage in coming weeks. “Drayage drivers could effectively go into power-only mode,” meaning they could use their tractors on the spot market to haul trailers, Dehan said. “There may be some marginal drayage carriers who pop into over-the-road even as import volumes stay measured.” Supply-demand imbalance Surface freight demand has been in recession since the second quarter of 2022, and even a large increase in imports, which only account for a small portion of overall over-the-road tonnage, likely won’t be enough to resuscitate demand. “There don’t appear to be too many demand catalysts that we can point to right now,” Dehan said. “Tariffs are not going to create demand.” At the same time, truck capacity is readily available, whether at the ports or on highways. There is still about 35% more over-the-road truckload capacity available than in 2019, according to Avery Vise, vice president of trucking for FTR Transportation Intelligence. Most instances where freight activity has increased in the past few months can be attributed to frontloaded US imports. Spot market load board provider DAT Freight & Analytics noted increased activity around major distribution hubs in April. “The big warehouse markets — Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix — have all seen a big influx of loads moved in April, both inbound and outbound,” Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT, told the Journal of Commerce. But that hasn’t moved spot pricing. Average US dry-van spot rates for the week ending May 10 of $1.60 per mile were up just three cents from the same week a year ago, according to DAT, while the average contract replacement rate slipped 0.5% sequentially during the same week. “Overall, we continue to observe a consistent market,” Aaron LaGanke, vice president of freight services at logistics provider AFS Logistics, said Thursday. “Minor month-to-month fluctuations in rates and volumes remain within the bounds of typical variability.” The wild card is going to be the size and extent of the rebound once fresh imports from China and other trading partners hit US ports. Demand “may be a little bit slack for four weeks, and then it will hit in June,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain at drayage brokerage ITS Logistics. “We won’t see COVID-level disruption, but it will be a lift, and it’s on the way.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Truckload

Capacity-demand imbalance to shield truck rates from US import surge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Under their current configuration, the newest round of tariffs targeting China’s maritime industry will add $7 billion in costs for US ports, according to one estimate. </div>

Under their current configuration, the newest round of tariffs targeting China’s maritime industry will add $7 billion in costs for US ports, according to one estimate.

<div class="phx-topic">US ports face almost $7 billion in tariff costs under the Trump administration’s proposed levy on Chinese container cranes, according to the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), which has joined other stakeholders in calling for a delay to allow a domestic crane industry to develop before cutting China out of the market.AAPA delivered the estimate in prepared comments ahead of a hearing on Monday on the new tariffs at the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The USTR in April unveiled the proposed tariffs on Chinese-made cranes, containers, chassis and similar equipment as part of its one-year-old investigation into China’s dominant market share of the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries. The investigation, begun under the Biden administration at the request of several US trade and manufacturing unions, has already resulted in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">a new tariff</a> to be assessed on Chinese ships and ocean carriers calling the US beginning in October. AAPA said 44 of the 55 cranes currently on order by US ports are being made in China. Over the next 10 years, US ports need to purchase another 151 container cranes, with 121 of those due to come from China, AAPA said. Those current and future orders total about $2.5 billion, AAPA said. If the tariffs on container equipment — up to 100% — are added to existing tariffs on Chinese imports, US ports will pay $6.7 billion in tariffs, according to the group. As an example, AAPA said the Port of Houston is scheduled to receive eight cranes from Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC), China’s leading manufacturer, in the spring of 2026. Houston would be forced to pay $304 million in tariffs on that order if the fees are imposed, AAPA said, adding “that means over $300 million not invested in infrastructure projects at one of the nation’s largest ports.” AAPA asked that any cranes ordered before April be exempt from the tariffs. “American ports need these cranes now, but they simply cannot afford [the] unexpected costs,” AAPA said. “They cannot back out of these purchases.” <h3>‘Significant strain’</h3>The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said its marine terminal operators, which have over 70 cranes, are currently planning to purchase more. With ZPMC the source for over half of the port’s cranes, the tariffs would “result in a significant strain on the local and national maritime industry,” the port said.Even if a port did not contract with ZPMC, orders with other crane manufacturers in Europe and Asia would also likely face the tariffs because part of their manufacturing is done in China or uses Chinese components, the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) said in its prepared comments to the USTR.While the Biden administration earmarked $20 billion in incentives last year for developing US crane manufacturing, AAPA and NAWE said that effort will take a long time to develop due to the lack of skilled welders and the reliance on Chinese manufacturers for subassemblies and other crane components. Both groups urged the USTR to delay the implementation by two to three years to allow a US-based crane industry to develop. “Currently, existing suppliers have a lead time of about two years for new orders of STS cranes,” AAPA said. “We can therefore assume that it will take at least that long for the first American STS cranes to roll off the assembly line, and that is if final investment decisions in new factories were made today.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US ports face almost $7 billion in tariff costs under the Trump administration’s proposed levy on Chinese container cranes, according to the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), which has joined other stakeholders in calling for a delay to allow a domestic crane industry to develop before cutting China out of the market. AAPA delivered the estimate in prepared comments ahead of a hearing on Monday on the new tariffs at the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The USTR in April unveiled the proposed tariffs on Chinese-made cranes, containers, chassis and similar equipment as part of its one-year-old investigation into China’s dominant market share of the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries. The investigation, begun under the Biden administration at the request of several US trade and manufacturing unions, has already resulted in a new tariff to be assessed on Chinese ships and ocean carriers calling the US beginning in October. AAPA said 44 of the 55 cranes currently on order by US ports are being made in China. Over the next 10 years, US ports need to purchase another 151 container cranes, with 121 of those due to come from China, AAPA said. Those current and future orders total about $2.5 billion, AAPA said. If the tariffs on container equipment — up to 100% — are added to existing tariffs on Chinese imports, US ports will pay $6.7 billion in tariffs, according to the group. As an example, AAPA said the Port of Houston is scheduled to receive eight cranes from Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC), China’s leading manufacturer, in the spring of 2026. Houston would be forced to pay $304 million in tariffs on that order if the fees are imposed, AAPA said, adding “that means over $300 million not invested in infrastructure projects at one of the nation’s largest ports.” AAPA asked that any cranes ordered before April be exempt from the tariffs. “American ports need these cranes now, but they simply cannot afford [the] unexpected costs,” AAPA said. “They cannot back out of these purchases.” ‘Significant strain’ The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said its marine terminal operators, which have over 70 cranes, are currently planning to purchase more. With ZPMC the source for over half of the port’s cranes, the tariffs would “result in a significant strain on the local and national maritime industry,” the port said. Even if a port did not contract with ZPMC, orders with other crane manufacturers in Europe and Asia would also likely face the tariffs because part of their manufacturing is done in China or uses Chinese components, the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) said in its prepared comments to the USTR. While the Biden administration earmarked $20 billion in incentives last year for developing US crane manufacturing, AAPA and NAWE said that effort will take a long time to develop due to the lack of skilled welders and the reliance on Chinese manufacturers for subassemblies and other crane components. Both groups urged the USTR to delay the implementation by two to three years to allow a US-based crane industry to develop. “Currently, existing suppliers have a lead time of about two years for new orders of STS cranes,” AAPA said. “We can therefore assume that it will take at least that long for the first American STS cranes to roll off the assembly line, and that is if final investment decisions in new factories were made today.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

US DOT initiates crackdown on non-English-speaking truckers

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

US tariff-linked cargo rush causes port congestion, box shortages in China

Ocean carriers line up hefty rate hikes on oversupplied Asia-Europe trade

Trans-Pacific carriers announce massive June rate hikes

Recent Commentary

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

Navigating the current supply chain is a matter of choosing your poison

Top 5 Most Read Stories