<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A proposed amendment that could be included in the 2026 defense spending bill would allow terminal operators to receive the same tax breaks now available to the US shipbuilding industry. </div>

A proposed amendment that could be included in the 2026 defense spending bill would allow terminal operators to receive the same tax breaks now available to the US shipbuilding industry.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US ports, looking to leverage national security concerns over Chinese-made cargo handling equipment, want tax breaks for purchasing domestic ship-to-shore cranes to be included in Congress’s next defense spending bill.With the 2026 defense authorization bill introduced this week, the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) asked Congress on Wednesday to include an amendment that would expand a tax-deferral program for purchasing US-built ships to include US-built cargo handling equipment. The amendment, originally introduced in June by Rep. Mike Ezell (R-Mississippi), would include cargo handling equipment as part of the Capital Construction Fund, which is overseen by the US Maritime Administration (Marad). The program allows ocean carriers and vessel operators to defer taxes on any funds set aside for buying or building a US-built ship. Similarly, Ezell’s amendment would allow marine terminal operators to defer taxes on any funds set aside for US-built cargo handling equipment. NAWE, whose members operate at 16 US ports deemed critical for US defense, said in a statement the amendment would “allow the industry to safely and securely transition away from cargo handling equipment produced in China...(and)...sustain US military operations abroad.”“Expanding the CCF will ensure that private marine terminal operators can reinvest in safer, cleaner, and more efficient equipment — strengthening America’s ports, boosting domestic manufacturing and enhancing national security,” NAWE President Carl Bentzel said.As part of the Defense Department’s broader goal of incentivizing US shipbuilding, the CCF was expanded in 2023’s defense spending authorization to cover a broader array of vessels. Marad said the fund held $2.6 billion from 136 US vessel operators as of 2023. Ezell’s amendment comes as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-look-to-delay-proposed-us-tariffs-on-chinese-made-cranes-6007628">marine terminal operators face tariffs of up to 100%</a> on Chinese-made ship-to-shore cranes beginning Oct. 14. He is also backing a bill introduced over the summer that would provide <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congress-eyes-a-tax-credit-for-reshoring-port-crane-manufacturing-6053124">tax credits to domestic manufacturers</a> of ship-to-shore cranes. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a> </div>

US ports, looking to leverage national security concerns over Chinese-made cargo handling equipment, want tax breaks for purchasing domestic ship-to-shore cranes to be included in Congress’s next defense spending bill. With the 2026 defense authorization bill introduced this week, the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) asked Congress on Wednesday to include an amendment that would expand a tax-deferral program for purchasing US-built ships to include US-built cargo handling equipment. The amendment, originally introduced in June by Rep. Mike Ezell (R-Mississippi), would include cargo handling equipment as part of the Capital Construction Fund, which is overseen by the US Maritime Administration (Marad). The program allows ocean carriers and vessel operators to defer taxes on any funds set aside for buying or building a US-built ship. Similarly, Ezell’s amendment would allow marine terminal operators to defer taxes on any funds set aside for US-built cargo handling equipment. NAWE, whose members operate at 16 US ports deemed critical for US defense, said in a statement the amendment would “allow the industry to safely and securely transition away from cargo handling equipment produced in China...(and)...sustain US military operations abroad.” “Expanding the CCF will ensure that private marine terminal operators can reinvest in safer, cleaner, and more efficient equipment — strengthening America’s ports, boosting domestic manufacturing and enhancing national security,” NAWE President Carl Bentzel said. As part of the Defense Department’s broader goal of incentivizing US shipbuilding, the CCF was expanded in 2023’s defense spending authorization to cover a broader array of vessels. Marad said the fund held $2.6 billion from 136 US vessel operators as of 2023. Ezell’s amendment comes as marine terminal operators face tariffs of up to 100% on Chinese-made ship-to-shore cranes beginning Oct. 14. He is also backing a bill introduced over the summer that would provide tax credits to domestic manufacturers of ship-to-shore cranes. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

Marine terminals

Port infrastructure

North American ports

US ports look to Congress for tax breaks on replacing Chinese cranes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">That’s an improvement from the near gridlock of four years ago during the COVID-linked volume surge and the elevated dwell times during last year’s peak season, progress trucking companies say they have noticed.</div>

That’s an improvement from the near gridlock of four years ago during the COVID-linked volume surge and the elevated dwell times during last year’s peak season, progress trucking companies say they have noticed.

<div class="phx-topic">Western US railroads BNSF and Union Pacific largely kept ocean containers flowing smoothly in August through the key hubs of Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City and Memphis as Southern California’s July import surge moved inland, according to data and market participants. That’s an improvement from the near gridlock of four years ago during the COVID-linked volume surge and the elevated dwell times during last year’s peak season, progress trucking companies say they have noticed. Chassis were easy to find in inland cities and overall turn times for drivers were manageable, truckers say. “Surprisingly, everything's been relatively smooth,” Paul Brashier, vice president of global logistics for ITS Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. “The ports were busy in July. Then the cargo moved inland in August, and for the most part, the ecosystem handled it fine. The freight is flowing relatively well.” Some truck drivers have faced longer waits at Union Pacific’s Global IV terminal in Joliet, Ill., and at Norfolk Southern’s Landers terminal in Chicago, but those delays have been sporadic and predated the recent uptick in international intermodal traffic. BNSF’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bad-weather-early-peak-demand-slowed-bnsf-trains-last-month-6074860">train speeds slowed</a> in August, but the railroad attributed that to flash flooding near Amarillo, Tex., and extreme heat in California’s Mojave Desert. While the bad weather extended transit times, it did not create congestion inside terminals. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) reported that the average rail container dwell in Los Angeles and Long Beach in July was 5.18 days, down from 5.66 days a year earlier. August figures are expected in the coming weeks. Last year, rail dwells jumped to 8.2 days in August, 9.25 days in September and 9.86 days in October. Mike Jacob, president of the PMSA, doesn’t expect that to happen this year. "We really don't see a lot out there that's going to be super-challenging," Jacob told the Journal of Commerce. “[Railroads are] as good as or even better than last year…The railroads were making sure they weren't leaving anything on the docks. The total structural performance versus the pandemic is like night and day.” Marine terminal executives in Los Angeles and Long Beach offered a similar view, saying railcar supply and service have been solid since early August. At Yusen Terminals, where dwell times swelled to more than 10 days last August and September, conditions appear unlikely to repeat, according to Yusen President Alan McCorkle. <h3>Rails cite investment </h3>UP’s service metrics have held up better during this peak season so far than in the last two. In the final week of August, its average intermodal train speeds ranked in the 96th percentile of all weeks since 2017, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of US Surface Transportation Board data. The number of intermodal trains held in route was likewise lower than in 96% of weeks over that span, even as loaded railcars idling for more than 48 hours was the highest for the month of August in three years. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="cffd049d-9f51-41dc-be55-f79bcf5d15a5"></dynamic-object></div>Nevertheless, UP’s Intermodal Service Z-Score, a Journal of Commerce metric focused on how a railroad performs against its own historical norms, has stayed positive during this peak season thus far, a contrast to 2023 and 2024 when the score flipped negative during the peak months. “Union Pacific has invested $1.4 billion in our intermodal terminals since 2020, opening four new terminals,” said Robynn Tysver, a spokesperson for UP. “Investment in technology has been a game changer at intermodal terminals, notably the new gate technology that gives drivers a seamless, efficient experience in-gating and out-gating, helping us to deliver a strong and reliable service to the market.” BNSF has zeroed in on Memphis this summer, where drivers have lodged more complaints than at its hubs in Chicago, Kansas City and Fort Worth. In response, the railroad deployed a resource team to Memphis to monitor wait times in real time and coordinate with drivers and crane operators to move boxes faster. Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, said the effort has already paid off. “Our driver average turn time has come down about 30% since this summer,” Gabriel said. “This dedicated resource (in Memphis), strictly focused on driver throughput and the driver experience, has made a big difference. It was a pilot program, but it’s been very successful. If need be, we’ll certainly look to scale it elsewhere in our network.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a> and Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Western US railroads BNSF and Union Pacific largely kept ocean containers flowing smoothly in August through the key hubs of Chicago, Dallas, Kansas City and Memphis as Southern California’s July import surge moved inland, according to data and market participants. That’s an improvement from the near gridlock of four years ago during the COVID-linked volume surge and the elevated dwell times during last year’s peak season, progress trucking companies say they have noticed. Chassis were easy to find in inland cities and overall turn times for drivers were manageable, truckers say. “Surprisingly, everything's been relatively smooth,” Paul Brashier, vice president of global logistics for ITS Logistics, told the Journal of Commerce. “The ports were busy in July. Then the cargo moved inland in August, and for the most part, the ecosystem handled it fine. The freight is flowing relatively well.” Some truck drivers have faced longer waits at Union Pacific’s Global IV terminal in Joliet, Ill., and at Norfolk Southern’s Landers terminal in Chicago, but those delays have been sporadic and predated the recent uptick in international intermodal traffic. BNSF’s train speeds slowed in August, but the railroad attributed that to flash flooding near Amarillo, Tex., and extreme heat in California’s Mojave Desert. While the bad weather extended transit times, it did not create congestion inside terminals. The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) reported that the average rail container dwell in Los Angeles and Long Beach in July was 5.18 days, down from 5.66 days a year earlier. August figures are expected in the coming weeks. Last year, rail dwells jumped to 8.2 days in August, 9.25 days in September and 9.86 days in October. Mike Jacob, president of the PMSA, doesn’t expect that to happen this year. "We really don't see a lot out there that's going to be super-challenging," Jacob told the Journal of Commerce. “[Railroads are] as good as or even better than last year…The railroads were making sure they weren't leaving anything on the docks. The total structural performance versus the pandemic is like night and day.” Marine terminal executives in Los Angeles and Long Beach offered a similar view, saying railcar supply and service have been solid since early August. At Yusen Terminals, where dwell times swelled to more than 10 days last August and September, conditions appear unlikely to repeat, according to Yusen President Alan McCorkle. Rails cite investment UP’s service metrics have held up better during this peak season so far than in the last two. In the final week of August, its average intermodal train speeds ranked in the 96th percentile of all weeks since 2017, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of US Surface Transportation Board data. The number of intermodal trains held in route was likewise lower than in 96% of weeks over that span, even as loaded railcars idling for more than 48 hours was the highest for the month of August in three years. Nevertheless, UP’s Intermodal Service Z-Score, a Journal of Commerce metric focused on how a railroad performs against its own historical norms, has stayed positive during this peak season thus far, a contrast to 2023 and 2024 when the score flipped negative during the peak months. “Union Pacific has invested $1.4 billion in our intermodal terminals since 2020, opening four new terminals,” said Robynn Tysver, a spokesperson for UP. “Investment in technology has been a game changer at intermodal terminals, notably the new gate technology that gives drivers a seamless, efficient experience in-gating and out-gating, helping us to deliver a strong and reliable service to the market.” BNSF has zeroed in on Memphis this summer, where drivers have lodged more complaints than at its hubs in Chicago, Kansas City and Fort Worth. In response, the railroad deployed a resource team to Memphis to monitor wait times in real time and coordinate with drivers and crane operators to move boxes faster. Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, said the effort has already paid off. “Our driver average turn time has come down about 30% since this summer,” Gabriel said. “This dedicated resource (in Memphis), strictly focused on driver throughput and the driver experience, has made a big difference. It was a pilot program, but it’s been very successful. If need be, we’ll certainly look to scale it elsewhere in our network.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com and Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Rail News

BNSF, UP kept rail terminals fluid in August amid IPI surge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Weather-related slowdowns were compounded by track work that typically wraps up in August but overlapped this year with an earlier-than-usual surge in international and domestic intermodal demand.</div>

Weather-related slowdowns were compounded by track work that typically wraps up in August but overlapped this year with an earlier-than-usual surge in international and domestic intermodal demand.

<div class="phx-topic">BNSF Railway’s intermodal train speeds in August were its slowest of 2025 and among its lowest in more than eight years, with the railroad blaming the slowdown on an early peak season that clashed with construction projects, flash flooding in parts of its network and extreme heat in the California desert. The disruptions didn’t impact BNSF’s terminal operations — the loading and unloading of trains and cargo handoffs to trucks — but rather trains in transit. Weather-related slowdowns were compounded by track work that typically wraps up in August but overlapped this year with an earlier-than-usual surge in international and domestic intermodal demand, the railroad said. “[August is] the time of year that we typically have our highest capital gain maintenance activity [repairing our] infrastructure needs ahead of domestic intermodal peak season and parcel holiday shipments,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, told the Journal of Commerce. “But with the pull forward, we saw more demand than we would typically see in July and August. The capital projects have been wrapped up.” BNSF expects weather to be less of a factor this fall, particularly between Amarillo, Texas, and Emporia, Kansas, where flash flooding was a problem in July and August. In Amarillo, there was flash flooding on July 24–25, Aug. 12, and Aug. 29–30. BNSF’s southern transcontinental network crosses New Mexico and then loops northeast through Amarillo and Emporia en route to Kansas City. “With flash flooding, we bring our trains down to 20 miles per hour or less,” Gabriel said. “Train crews need to visually look out for any water over the top of rail. You think about our [southern US network] at any given day, we may have 250 to 300 trains operating on it, and especially in the middle of the night, we had traffic slowed down.” <h3>‘Z Score’ flips to negative </h3>Heat, meanwhile, was a disruption in the California desert, with tracks requiring close inspection to monitor for any deformities in the steel that could cause a derailment. Two major heat waves hit the Mojave Desert in California, sending temperatures above 110 degrees on several days last month. The earlier demand and weather-related factors caused BNSF’s intermodal train speeds for all four weeks of August to be slower than 95% of all weeks dating back to 2017, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ef92b52a-168e-4e14-88eb-3b647a1dd66e"></dynamic-object></div>As train speeds fell, the number of loaded BNSF railcars idling excessively jumped. In the last week of August, an average of nearly 279 loaded railcars each day were classified as idling excessively on the BNSF network, meaning not moving for more than 48 hours. The figure was higher than 72% of all weeks dating back to 2017, according to the STB data. BNSF’s Intermodal Service Z-Score, a Journal of Commerce metric focused on how a railroad performs against its own historical norms, flipped from positive to negative last month. Positive scores indicate outperformance versus norms; negative scores indicate underperformance. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

BNSF Railway’s intermodal train speeds in August were its slowest of 2025 and among its lowest in more than eight years, with the railroad blaming the slowdown on an early peak season that clashed with construction projects, flash flooding in parts of its network and extreme heat in the California desert. The disruptions didn’t impact BNSF’s terminal operations — the loading and unloading of trains and cargo handoffs to trucks — but rather trains in transit. Weather-related slowdowns were compounded by track work that typically wraps up in August but overlapped this year with an earlier-than-usual surge in international and domestic intermodal demand, the railroad said. “[August is] the time of year that we typically have our highest capital gain maintenance activity [repairing our] infrastructure needs ahead of domestic intermodal peak season and parcel holiday shipments,” Jon Gabriel, BNSF’s group vice president of consumer products, told the Journal of Commerce. “But with the pull forward, we saw more demand than we would typically see in July and August. The capital projects have been wrapped up.” BNSF expects weather to be less of a factor this fall, particularly between Amarillo, Texas, and Emporia, Kansas, where flash flooding was a problem in July and August. In Amarillo, there was flash flooding on July 24–25, Aug. 12, and Aug. 29–30. BNSF’s southern transcontinental network crosses New Mexico and then loops northeast through Amarillo and Emporia en route to Kansas City. “With flash flooding, we bring our trains down to 20 miles per hour or less,” Gabriel said. “Train crews need to visually look out for any water over the top of rail. You think about our [southern US network] at any given day, we may have 250 to 300 trains operating on it, and especially in the middle of the night, we had traffic slowed down.” ‘Z Score’ flips to negative Heat, meanwhile, was a disruption in the California desert, with tracks requiring close inspection to monitor for any deformities in the steel that could cause a derailment. Two major heat waves hit the Mojave Desert in California, sending temperatures above 110 degrees on several days last month. The earlier demand and weather-related factors caused BNSF’s intermodal train speeds for all four weeks of August to be slower than 95% of all weeks dating back to 2017, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). As train speeds fell, the number of loaded BNSF railcars idling excessively jumped. In the last week of August, an average of nearly 279 loaded railcars each day were classified as idling excessively on the BNSF network, meaning not moving for more than 48 hours. The figure was higher than 72% of all weeks dating back to 2017, according to the STB data. BNSF’s Intermodal Service Z-Score, a Journal of Commerce metric focused on how a railroad performs against its own historical norms, flipped from positive to negative last month. Positive scores indicate outperformance versus norms; negative scores indicate underperformance. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

Bad weather, early peak demand slowed BNSF trains last month

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The dismal outlook for the second half of the year is prompting Wall Street analysts to rein in earnings expectations as many carriers also report steep declines in their profit margins amid a mix of overcapacity and “tariff-driven cost escalation.”</div>

The dismal outlook for the second half of the year is prompting Wall Street analysts to rein in earnings expectations as many carriers also report steep declines in their profit margins amid a mix of overcapacity and “tariff-driven cost escalation.”

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carrier earnings this year are expected to fall by more than half compared with last year, as profit margins slip to 2023 levels. And with vessel capacity outstripping demand for the foreseeable future, liner operators face the prospect of a loss-making 2026.Full-year 2025 earnings for eight publicly-traded ocean carriers are expected to fall by an average of 61% compared with 2024, according to Capital IQ Estimates, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The consensus analyst estimates as of September mark a further ratcheting down from the 53% drop in 2025 earnings expected as of March 31. The downward revision comes after carriers reported second-quarter results and offered up dismal forecasts for the remainder of 2025. Out of all the carriers, only Maersk saw its earnings estimates revised upward after Chief Executive Vincent Clerc said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-ceo-vows-to-reach-logistics-profit-margin-target-by-year-end-6059993">its non-ocean logistics business would hit its 2025 profit margin targets</a>.Investment bank HSBC said in a report on Tuesday that import frontloading during the second quarter will dampen demand throughout the rest of 2025. The investment bank added that as retail goods that came in ahead of tariffs get replaced with goods subject to tariffs, consumers could rein in spending, thus hurting further inventory replenishment.“We think tariff-driven cost escalation would suppress consumer demand while frontloadings from Q2 to early Q3 could retard retailer restocking cycles in H2,” HSBC said. “In this context, we argue that carriers would face margin compression as they balance capacity cuts against softening demand in the rest of the year.”<h3>Big decline in operating margins</h3>Alphaliner noted the margin compression in its weekly report Tuesday. Since hitting their most recent peak of 38.4% in the third quarter of 2024, operating profit margins for ocean carriers have since fallen to 9.9% as of the second quarter of 2025, the lowest level since the fourth quarter of 2023, according to Alphaliner. It said the rerouting of ships away from the Suez Canal was the big factor in 2024 margin strength.“This time round, margins are falling while the Red Sea crisis continues,” Alphaliner said, adding that a weaker earnings outlook and margin compression were seen in carriers reporting the steepest declines in their freight rates. South Korea’s HMM reported a 22% year-over-year decline in revenue per TEU for the second quarter, Alphaliner said. The carrier’s operating margins fell from 30% last year to 9% for the second quarter of 2025, according to Capital IQ, while earnings for 2025 are now expected to fall 50% compared with a consensus estimate of a 28% decline back in March. Zim reported an 11% year-over-year decline in freight rates during the second quarter, Alphaliner said. While the carrier reported a 29% operating margin in 2024, its most recent operating margin was 9%, according to Capital IQ. Analysts’ consensus estimates now show Zim’s profits falling 82% this year. Alphaliner noted that Wan Hai Lines, Evergreen Marine and Cosco Shipping reported second-quarter operating margins well above the industry average, attributing their margin strength to exposure to trades outside of the US that have proved more resilient. As for 2026, the outlook is not much better. A <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rocky-stretch-ahead-for-shippers-carriers-in-2026-and-beyond-6069904">J.P. Morgan report last week</a> said shipping rates globally could slip below $1,000 per TEU due to tepid demand and an oversupply of vessels. With <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-intensify-cost-cutting-efforts-as-rates-slide-on-major-trades-6069811">operating costs increasing</a> and the potential return of Suez Canal transits exacerbating oversupply, “we expect material EBIT losses” in 2026 for the liner operators under its analyst coverage, the bank said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Ocean carrier earnings this year are expected to fall by more than half compared with last year, as profit margins slip to 2023 levels. And with vessel capacity outstripping demand for the foreseeable future, liner operators face the prospect of a loss-making 2026. Full-year 2025 earnings for eight publicly-traded ocean carriers are expected to fall by an average of 61% compared with 2024, according to Capital IQ Estimates, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The consensus analyst estimates as of September mark a further ratcheting down from the 53% drop in 2025 earnings expected as of March 31. The downward revision comes after carriers reported second-quarter results and offered up dismal forecasts for the remainder of 2025. Out of all the carriers, only Maersk saw its earnings estimates revised upward after Chief Executive Vincent Clerc said its non-ocean logistics business would hit its 2025 profit margin targets . Investment bank HSBC said in a report on Tuesday that import frontloading during the second quarter will dampen demand throughout the rest of 2025. The investment bank added that as retail goods that came in ahead of tariffs get replaced with goods subject to tariffs, consumers could rein in spending, thus hurting further inventory replenishment. “We think tariff-driven cost escalation would suppress consumer demand while frontloadings from Q2 to early Q3 could retard retailer restocking cycles in H2,” HSBC said. “In this context, we argue that carriers would face margin compression as they balance capacity cuts against softening demand in the rest of the year.” Big decline in operating margins Alphaliner noted the margin compression in its weekly report Tuesday. Since hitting their most recent peak of 38.4% in the third quarter of 2024, operating profit margins for ocean carriers have since fallen to 9.9% as of the second quarter of 2025, the lowest level since the fourth quarter of 2023, according to Alphaliner. It said the rerouting of ships away from the Suez Canal was the big factor in 2024 margin strength. “This time round, margins are falling while the Red Sea crisis continues,” Alphaliner said, adding that a weaker earnings outlook and margin compression were seen in carriers reporting the steepest declines in their freight rates. South Korea’s HMM reported a 22% year-over-year decline in revenue per TEU for the second quarter, Alphaliner said. The carrier’s operating margins fell from 30% last year to 9% for the second quarter of 2025, according to Capital IQ, while earnings for 2025 are now expected to fall 50% compared with a consensus estimate of a 28% decline back in March. Zim reported an 11% year-over-year decline in freight rates during the second quarter, Alphaliner said. While the carrier reported a 29% operating margin in 2024, its most recent operating margin was 9%, according to Capital IQ. Analysts’ consensus estimates now show Zim’s profits falling 82% this year. Alphaliner noted that Wan Hai Lines, Evergreen Marine and Cosco Shipping reported second-quarter operating margins well above the industry average, attributing their margin strength to exposure to trades outside of the US that have proved more resilient. As for 2026, the outlook is not much better. A J.P. Morgan report last week said shipping rates globally could slip below $1,000 per TEU due to tepid demand and an oversupply of vessels. With operating costs increasing and the potential return of Suez Canal transits exacerbating oversupply, “we expect material EBIT losses” in 2026 for the liner operators under its analyst coverage, the bank said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Container lines

Ocean carrier profit margins, earnings outlook for 2025 trimmed further

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Fifteen of the 27 EU countries will postpone implementation of the customs risk analysis program for imports into the EU until the end of the year, including France, Belgium, Spain and Italy.</div>

Fifteen of the 27 EU countries will postpone implementation of the customs risk analysis program for imports into the EU until the end of the year, including France, Belgium, Spain and Italy.

<div class="phx-topic">More than half of the European Union’s 27 member nations will delay implementation of the advance cargo information system for road and rail shipments that was supposed to require full compliance from Sept. 1 to give service providers more time to prepare. But the four-month postponement of the final segment of the Import Control System 2 (ICS2) regulation — a customs risk analysis program for imports into the EU that has taken five years to fully launch — has been roundly criticized by shippers and transport organizations. The incomplete rollout has created “a patchwork implementation that will confuse and frustrate” parties that move cargo into the EU, according to James Hookham, director-general of the Global Shippers’ Forum “It’s an EU-wide system so it’s either ready to work in 27 member states — plus Norway, Northern Ireland and Switzerland — or it’s not,” Hookham told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. The ICS2 advance filing system was applied to air cargo in 2021 and ocean shipments in 2024. Under ICS2 “Release 3” on Sept. 1, the regulation was applied to road and rail shipments that now also require Entry Summary Declarations (ENS) for shipments entering or transiting the EU Customs Territory. Bryn Heimbeck, president and co-founder of global logistics platform TradeTech, noted that although ICS2 Release 3 was an important step in strengthening supply chain security in Europe, “the decision to allow postponements has created different timelines across the EU, which can be challenging for participants to navigate.” He said 15 of the 27 EU countries will delay implementation of ICS2 Release 3, including France, Belgium, Spain and Italy. The postponements are expected to be in effect until the end of the year, with full compliance mandatory once they expire. Road transport association IRU said granting postponements to EU member nations was logical if the system was not ready, but should have been applied to all member states. “In the current situation, a two-speed approach will expose road transport operators to high penalties and will force difficult and expensive decisions on the routing of operations, while customs administrations may struggle with high volumes of incomplete or missing ENS declarations,” IRU said in a statement, warning of “severe disruption” at the EU’s external borders. <h3>Landside cargo challenges </h3>While the ICS2 was rolled out relatively painlessly for the ocean sectors, bringing the EU’s customs regulatory processes and data configurations in line with those of the US, Canada and Japan, preparations for advance information for landside cargo have proved to be complicated. The European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (Clecat), explained in a recent letter to the European Commission that land borders, unlike seaports and airports, had limited capacity and could be congested by only a few delayed trucks. “Practical challenges unique to road and rail, such as split loads, the prevalence of small carriers and the need for a multitude of non-EU operators to register in EU systems were clearly overlooked when assigning the same deployment timeline to all modes of transport,” the forwarder association noted. Clecat, the Global Shippers’ Forum and IRU have urged the European Commission to grant a non-enforcement period for ICS2 for road and rail, warning of serious blockages at European land borders. “The European Commission should act without delay and announce a six-month grace period at EU level to avoid fragmentation, ensure legal certainty and prevent disruption to European supply chains,” Clecat wrote in its letter to Brussels. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

More than half of the European Union’s 27 member nations will delay implementation of the advance cargo information system for road and rail shipments that was supposed to require full compliance from Sept. 1 to give service providers more time to prepare. But the four-month postponement of the final segment of the Import Control System 2 (ICS2) regulation — a customs risk analysis program for imports into the EU that has taken five years to fully launch — has been roundly criticized by shippers and transport organizations. The incomplete rollout has created “a patchwork implementation that will confuse and frustrate” parties that move cargo into the EU, according to James Hookham, director-general of the Global Shippers’ Forum “It’s an EU-wide system so it’s either ready to work in 27 member states — plus Norway, Northern Ireland and Switzerland — or it’s not,” Hookham told the Journal of Commerce Wednesday. The ICS2 advance filing system was applied to air cargo in 2021 and ocean shipments in 2024. Under ICS2 “Release 3” on Sept. 1, the regulation was applied to road and rail shipments that now also require Entry Summary Declarations (ENS) for shipments entering or transiting the EU Customs Territory. Bryn Heimbeck, president and co-founder of global logistics platform TradeTech, noted that although ICS2 Release 3 was an important step in strengthening supply chain security in Europe, “the decision to allow postponements has created different timelines across the EU, which can be challenging for participants to navigate.” He said 15 of the 27 EU countries will delay implementation of ICS2 Release 3, including France, Belgium, Spain and Italy. The postponements are expected to be in effect until the end of the year, with full compliance mandatory once they expire. Road transport association IRU said granting postponements to EU member nations was logical if the system was not ready, but should have been applied to all member states. “In the current situation, a two-speed approach will expose road transport operators to high penalties and will force difficult and expensive decisions on the routing of operations, while customs administrations may struggle with high volumes of incomplete or missing ENS declarations,” IRU said in a statement, warning of “severe disruption” at the EU’s external borders. Landside cargo challenges While the ICS2 was rolled out relatively painlessly for the ocean sectors, bringing the EU’s customs regulatory processes and data configurations in line with those of the US, Canada and Japan, preparations for advance information for landside cargo have proved to be complicated. The European Association for Forwarding, Transport, Logistics and Customs Services (Clecat), explained in a recent letter to the European Commission that land borders, unlike seaports and airports, had limited capacity and could be congested by only a few delayed trucks. “Practical challenges unique to road and rail, such as split loads, the prevalence of small carriers and the need for a multitude of non-EU operators to register in EU systems were clearly overlooked when assigning the same deployment timeline to all modes of transport,” the forwarder association noted. Clecat, the Global Shippers’ Forum and IRU have urged the European Commission to grant a non-enforcement period for ICS2 for road and rail, warning of serious blockages at European land borders. “The European Commission should act without delay and announce a six-month grace period at EU level to avoid fragmentation, ensure legal certainty and prevent disruption to European supply chains,” Clecat wrote in its letter to Brussels. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Supply chain

Cargo groups slam ‘patchwork’ rollout of Europe’s ICS2 advance filing program

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container lines offering regular calls at India’s busiest port have told customers the landside logjam is causing considerable supply chain risks for the trade as train turnarounds remain increasingly chaotic.</div>

Container lines offering regular calls at India’s busiest port have told customers the landside logjam is causing considerable supply chain risks for the trade as train turnarounds remain increasingly chaotic.

<div class="phx-topic">Mundra Port — India’s busiest container handler — is grappling with major harbor congestion that has severely disrupted the flow of cargo to and from northern hinterlands by rail. Rail freight accounts for a significant portion of box volumes handled by Mundra, with northern inland container depots contributing the most. Container lines offering regular calls at Mundra have told customers the landside logjam is causing considerable supply chain risks for the trade as train turnarounds remain increasingly chaotic. “Due to congestion, train movement towards Mundra Port is currently disrupted,” Maersk said in a customer advisory. “This is affecting the timely placement of export trains at the port and, consequently, causing delays in the evacuation of import containers.” The import backlogs have choked rail yards, complicating the typically followed first-in, first-out model of train operations, sources said. Concerns among local supply chain stakeholders are growing, with freight depot service leader Gateway Distriparks (GDL) sending out a trade advisory to customers. “Train movement towards the port [Mundra] is currently sluggish,” GDL noted. “We are in regular touch with Indian Railways to expedite train movement.” Officials at India’s Association of Container Train Operators (ACTO) who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have attributed the rail slowdowns to chronic capacity pressure at Mundra stemming from landside infrastructure gaps amid steady trade growth. “There is a critical need for port rail capacity to increase with more handling lines and evacuation capacity in order to deal with the growing volumes,” said ACTO President Manish Puri. “This is the only long-term solution, otherwise congestion will keep occurring whenever there is even a minor volume peak or other operational hiccup due to external factors.” <h3>Terminals, train operators at odds </h3>As shippers face additional cost implications, a blame game over the cargo buildups appears to be at play between port terminals and container train operators (CTOs), including state-owned giant Container Corporation of India. “We are not denying the increased pressure from import surges, but CTOs stick to their normal business approach on the export leg — wait until trains are completely full to dispatch,” said a port executive who didn’t want to be identified. Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines’ Association (India), said the issue needs fixing between terminals and CTOs, adding that a shortage of truck drivers linked to the festive season and lingering vessel bunching cases have exacerbated the problem. Mundra is equipped to handle up to 30 trains a day, generally railing out between 5,000 TEUs to 6,000 TEUs daily. But the normal inventory of import containers landing into its yards is in the range of 15,000 TEUs, which sources said has peaked at 20,000 TEUs in recent days. Mundra — Adani Ports’ flagship port entity — features five box terminals, which have had 90%-plus utilization of existing capacity levels for some time because of strong cargo growth. But the pace of volumes passing through rival Nhava Sheva Port has ticked noticeably higher over the past few months following the recent launch of Phase II operations by concessionaire PSA International, pushing overall port capacity to about 10 million TEUs. The latest port data reflects that altering regional trend. April–August volumes at Nhava Sheva were up 13% year over year to 3.3 million TEUs, while Mundra remained relatively flat at 3.5 million TEUs. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Mundra Port — India’s busiest container handler — is grappling with major harbor congestion that has severely disrupted the flow of cargo to and from northern hinterlands by rail. Rail freight accounts for a significant portion of box volumes handled by Mundra, with northern inland container depots contributing the most. Container lines offering regular calls at Mundra have told customers the landside logjam is causing considerable supply chain risks for the trade as train turnarounds remain increasingly chaotic. “Due to congestion, train movement towards Mundra Port is currently disrupted,” Maersk said in a customer advisory. “This is affecting the timely placement of export trains at the port and, consequently, causing delays in the evacuation of import containers.” The import backlogs have choked rail yards, complicating the typically followed first-in, first-out model of train operations, sources said. Concerns among local supply chain stakeholders are growing, with freight depot service leader Gateway Distriparks (GDL) sending out a trade advisory to customers. “Train movement towards the port [Mundra] is currently sluggish,” GDL noted. “We are in regular touch with Indian Railways to expedite train movement.” Officials at India’s Association of Container Train Operators (ACTO) who spoke with the Journal of Commerce have attributed the rail slowdowns to chronic capacity pressure at Mundra stemming from landside infrastructure gaps amid steady trade growth. “There is a critical need for port rail capacity to increase with more handling lines and evacuation capacity in order to deal with the growing volumes,” said ACTO President Manish Puri. “This is the only long-term solution, otherwise congestion will keep occurring whenever there is even a minor volume peak or other operational hiccup due to external factors.” Terminals, train operators at odds As shippers face additional cost implications, a blame game over the cargo buildups appears to be at play between port terminals and container train operators (CTOs), including state-owned giant Container Corporation of India. “We are not denying the increased pressure from import surges, but CTOs stick to their normal business approach on the export leg — wait until trains are completely full to dispatch,” said a port executive who didn’t want to be identified. Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines’ Association (India), said the issue needs fixing between terminals and CTOs, adding that a shortage of truck drivers linked to the festive season and lingering vessel bunching cases have exacerbated the problem. Mundra is equipped to handle up to 30 trains a day, generally railing out between 5,000 TEUs to 6,000 TEUs daily. But the normal inventory of import containers landing into its yards is in the range of 15,000 TEUs, which sources said has peaked at 20,000 TEUs in recent days. Mundra — Adani Ports’ flagship port entity — features five box terminals, which have had 90%-plus utilization of existing capacity levels for some time because of strong cargo growth. But the pace of volumes passing through rival Nhava Sheva Port has ticked noticeably higher over the past few months following the recent launch of Phase II operations by concessionaire PSA International, pushing overall port capacity to about 10 million TEUs. The latest port data reflects that altering regional trend. April–August volumes at Nhava Sheva were up 13% year over year to 3.3 million TEUs, while Mundra remained relatively flat at 3.5 million TEUs. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Port News

International ports

Maritime

Congestion choking Mundra Port threatens North India cargo flow

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

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

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

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

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

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

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

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

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

Ro/ro cargo

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

 Actual capacity

{name} 
{valueY.formatNumber('###,###.')}

Planned capacity

Blanked capacity

eeSea collects and centralizes liner network data from dozens of public sources including carriers’ vessel tracking portals, long-term schedules, customer advisories, port and terminal operator schedules, and pilot schedules. These disparate datasets are continually inspected, cleaned, and carefully structured. eeSea synthesizes this refined public data with AIS positions from a third-party provider and its datasets spanning schedule reliability, transit times, trade capacity evolution, and 60-day vessel forecasts. Capacity is measured based on the last load port in Asia [eeSea](https://www.eesea.com)

Asia to US West Coast container capacity (eeSea)

Asia to US West Coast container capacity(eeSea)

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Robert Primus has been vocal in his opposition to consolidation in the rail industry, voting against the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger in 2023 and Canadian National Railway’s acquisition of Iowa Northern Railway earlier this year.</div>

Robert Primus has been vocal in his opposition to consolidation in the rail industry, voting against the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger in 2023 and Canadian National Railway’s acquisition of Iowa Northern Railway earlier this year.

<div class="phx-topic">President Donald Trump’s move to oust Robert Primus from the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) would seem to eliminate a key obstacle to securing regulatory approval for Union Pacific Railroad’s $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). Trump “fired” Primus from the STB on Wednesday, according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/trump-fires-board-member-of-regulator-weighing-rail-merger-4b108713?mod=Searchresults&amp;pos=1&amp;page=1">The Wall Street Journal</a>. But Primus, who called the move “legally invalid,” said he would continue performing his duties as a member of the board, The Journal reported. His removal, if upheld, comes as the board prepares to evaluate Union Pacific’s proposed acquisition of Norfolk Southern in the coming months, a deal that would create the nation’s first transcontinental freight railroad. It also sets up a potential legal showdown, similar to the one Trump faces in the aftermath of his move earlier this week to fire Lisa Cook from the board of the Federal Reserve. Trump, since his return to office in January, has acted on several occasions to remove members from boards and regulatory agencies and replace them with people seen as loyal to his agenda. Ironically, it was Trump who appointed Primus, a Democrat, to the STB in 2020. His apparent ouster means there are now two Republicans and only one Democrat on the board, which can have up to five members. The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART), the largest rail labor union, criticized the firing. SMART-TD, the transportation division covering rail engineers, has come out against UP’s acquisition of NS. “This action is unprecedented, unlawful in spirit, and reeks of direct interference from hedge funds and the nation’s largest rail carriers,” the union said in a statement Thursday. “The timing of this move cannot be ignored. Prior to its submission to the board, Mr. Primus has made clear his opposition to the so-called ‘merger’ that would be a corporate takeover combining Union Pacific Railroad and Norfolk Southern Railroad.” <h3>Voted against CP-KCS deal </h3>Primus has been vocal in his opposition to consolidation in the rail industry, voting against the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger in 2023 and Canadian National Railway’s acquisition of Iowa Northern Railway earlier this year. Removing him from the STB would seem to give the UP-NS deal a far easier avenue to gain the required approval from federal regulators. “We believe the move comes in an effort to clear the path for the potential transcontinental merger,” Jason Seidl, a transportation analyst with TD Securities, wrote in an investor’s note Thursday. “We believe a Republican appointment could still be forthcoming as channel checks indicated four candidates in contention, potentially leaving the [STB] with a 3-1 Republican majority by the time a decision has to be made.” By law, no single political party can have more than three out of the five available seats on the Surface Transportation Board. Chairman Patrick Fuchs and member Michelle Schultz are Republicans, while member Karen Hedlund is a Democrat. There is already an existing vacancy on the board. UP and NS will file their formal merger application by January, kicking off an STB review that would likely not result in a final vote until the spring of 2027, if not later. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

President Donald Trump’s move to oust Robert Primus from the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) would seem to eliminate a key obstacle to securing regulatory approval for Union Pacific Railroad’s $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). Trump “fired” Primus from the STB on Wednesday, according to The Wall Street Journal . But Primus, who called the move “legally invalid,” said he would continue performing his duties as a member of the board, The Journal reported. His removal, if upheld, comes as the board prepares to evaluate Union Pacific’s proposed acquisition of Norfolk Southern in the coming months, a deal that would create the nation’s first transcontinental freight railroad. It also sets up a potential legal showdown, similar to the one Trump faces in the aftermath of his move earlier this week to fire Lisa Cook from the board of the Federal Reserve. Trump, since his return to office in January, has acted on several occasions to remove members from boards and regulatory agencies and replace them with people seen as loyal to his agenda. Ironically, it was Trump who appointed Primus, a Democrat, to the STB in 2020. His apparent ouster means there are now two Republicans and only one Democrat on the board, which can have up to five members. The International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART), the largest rail labor union, criticized the firing. SMART-TD, the transportation division covering rail engineers, has come out against UP’s acquisition of NS. “This action is unprecedented, unlawful in spirit, and reeks of direct interference from hedge funds and the nation’s largest rail carriers,” the union said in a statement Thursday. “The timing of this move cannot be ignored. Prior to its submission to the board, Mr. Primus has made clear his opposition to the so-called ‘merger’ that would be a corporate takeover combining Union Pacific Railroad and Norfolk Southern Railroad.” Voted against CP-KCS deal Primus has been vocal in his opposition to consolidation in the rail industry, voting against the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger in 2023 and Canadian National Railway’s acquisition of Iowa Northern Railway earlier this year. Removing him from the STB would seem to give the UP-NS deal a far easier avenue to gain the required approval from federal regulators. “We believe the move comes in an effort to clear the path for the potential transcontinental merger,” Jason Seidl, a transportation analyst with TD Securities, wrote in an investor’s note Thursday. “We believe a Republican appointment could still be forthcoming as channel checks indicated four candidates in contention, potentially leaving the [STB] with a 3-1 Republican majority by the time a decision has to be made.” By law, no single political party can have more than three out of the five available seats on the Surface Transportation Board. Chairman Patrick Fuchs and member Michelle Schultz are Republicans, while member Karen Hedlund is a Democrat. There is already an existing vacancy on the board. UP and NS will file their formal merger application by January, kicking off an STB review that would likely not result in a final vote until the spring of 2027, if not later. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Trump move to oust STB’s Primus boosts likelihood of UP-NS approval

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The opening of the first phase of the port’s new on-dock rail yard will be delayed until next year, while the project faces a 42% increase in budgeted costs. </div>

The opening of the first phase of the port’s new on-dock rail yard will be delayed until next year, while the project faces a 42% increase in budgeted costs.

<div class="phx-topic">The opening of a major project to add on-dock rail to the Port of Charleston is delayed about six months and will only handle CSX Transportation trains initially due to design changes requested by Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). Inflation, redesigns, stalled permits, missed grants and even port crane tariffs have resulted in $232 million of cost overruns, making the project’s troubles a likely factor in the port’s chief executive recently resigning.<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/charleston-moves-ahead-with-plans-for-near-dock-intermodal-facility-5194359">The Navy Base Intermodal Facility</a> was originally budgeted at about $550 million. The brownfield development, adjacent to Charleston’s Hugh K. Leatherman terminal, is designed for handling 1 million container lifts per year and aimed <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/sc-ports-chief-outlines-plans-for-charleston-to-hit-10-million-teu-mark-5749894">to build upon Charleston’s development of inland ports at Greer and Dillon, South Carolina.</a>Since its original proposal in 2021, cost estimates have risen to $782 million, now-former South Carolina State Ports Authority (SC Ports) Chief Executive Barbara Melvin told a state legislative committee in July. South Carolina appropriated $550 million over 2021 and 2022 for the project. “We are seeing challenges in materials, labor and equipment to build these types of projects,” Melvin told the committee. “All of those have escalated over the last three years of this project.” The Navy Base project, which includes a barge service for moving containers to and from Charleson’s Wando Welch Terminal for rail service, was expected to open this summer. The rail yard will now open in January 2026, with some features not yet ready until 2027. Melvin, who was the port’s chief operating officer before becoming chief executive, announced <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/melvin-steps-down-as-sc-ports-chief-6067001">her resignation from SC Ports last week</a>, without citing a reason. South Carolina State Sen. Sean Bennett, one of the members of the fiscal oversight committee briefed on the project, said in a statement Thursday to the Journal of Commerce the rail yard “remains viable and essential, but the execution has clearly fallen short.”“Cost overruns can’t simply be dismissed as inflation — they reflect deeper issues,” Bennett said. “The Port Authority’s board must step up its responsibilities and provide the leadership and accountability this project requires.” SC Ports said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce it is still moving forward with the project as originally envisioned. Most of the yard’s construction is complete and its six gantry cranes have been installed. Cost overages for the remaining parts of the project are now part of the port’s 2026 capital plan. “This project will boost SC Ports’ already robust intermodal connectivity between the Port of Charleston and inland port markets in the Southeast and beyond,” SC Ports said in the statement. <h3>NS needs more access</h3>The rail yard itself, originally budgeted at about $400 million in 2021, is now expected to cost $544 million. Improvements to Charleston’s two terminals for barge service, originally budgeted at $150 million, have since increased to $237 million. Across all those, SC Ports faces higher material and labor costs, Melvin told the committee, adding that Leatherman terminal improvement costs have risen 44% since its initial construction in 2019, while nationwide warehouse and concrete construction costs have increased at rates of 25% and 32%, respectively, between 2021 and 2023.Construction costs on the rail yard itself, a former naval base, have also risen due to unexpectedly soft soil, environmental remediation and unforeseen buried infrastructure. Key features of the project will also not be ready in time for the January opening. A one-mile dedicated drayage road between the rail yard and the Leatherman terminal was redesigned after SC Ports did a land swap with a nearby US Coast Guard base. Until that road opens in November 2026, containers will be drayed on 2.5 miles of another industrial road near the port.Some 80,000 feet of rail track connecting to the rail yard from the south to CSX and NS’s main tracks also won’t be fully ready until March 2027, Melvin said, citing the extensive design challenges involving both railroads and various public entities. The tracks have eight street-level crossings through North Charleston. A construction award for the trackage is expected this October. “The southern connection has been the most challenging piece of the project,” Melvin told the committee, adding that steel tariffs will also raise its cost. Until the southern connection opens, only CSX will be able to access the rail yard through its north tracks. In addition to the south access, NS needs four miles of siding for passing trains, the railroad unexpectedly informed SC Ports this summer, Melvin said. The siding is expected to cost about $28 million and was originally thought to be part of NS’ own capital plans, she said. NS said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that it has informed SC Ports for the last decade about what it needs to utilize the site, specifically “tracks leading into the facility as well as construction of a passing siding in North Charleston.” “We remain committed to the success of the Navy Base intermodal facility and to collaborating to get this facility online as quickly as possible,” NS said. Melvin told the state senate committee she expects NS could use the facility as early as October 2026 when the first phase of the southern access is ready. <h3>Tariff hit on cranes</h3>For barges, SC Ports planned to build a 700-foot berth extension at Wando Welch. But since applying for a permit in 2018 and after four follow-ups, the US Army Corps of Engineers has yet to issue a permit for the berth, Melvin said. She said the berth hoped to win some $45 million in federal grants applied for under the Biden administration, but did not receive the funding. Melvin told the state senate committee SC Ports expects Wando’s barge berth could cost $76 million, “if we can get a permit quickly and proceed, but if we cannot, that price won’t hold.” “We could still operate a barge [at Wando’s existing berths], but it’s not ideal,” she said. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/charlestons-leatherman-terminal-eyes-second-berth-by-late-2026-6066963">The Leatherman terminal’s plans to build another 1,600 feet of berth</a> will allow it to handle a barge along with an additional container ship, Melvin said. However, the original plan only called for adding half that length. Melvin said that given the overall cost increases, SC Ports decided to move ahead with a full extension, adding $53 million to Leatherman’s budget. SC Ports originally budgeted $25 million to purchase ZPMC cranes for the Leatherman extension. But due to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/looming-us-tariffs-put-economic-viability-of-sts-cranes-in-doubt-6055678">the Trump administration’s proposed tariffs on Chinese-made cranes</a>, Melvin said SC Ports increased its crane budget to $34 million based on estimates from four non-Chinese crane makers, but the price could increase further.“You are paying a premium to order non-Chinese cranes,” Melvin said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The opening of a major project to add on-dock rail to the Port of Charleston is delayed about six months and will only handle CSX Transportation trains initially due to design changes requested by Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). Inflation, redesigns, stalled permits, missed grants and even port crane tariffs have resulted in $232 million of cost overruns, making the project’s troubles a likely factor in the port’s chief executive recently resigning. The Navy Base Intermodal Facility was originally budgeted at about $550 million. The brownfield development, adjacent to Charleston’s Hugh K. Leatherman terminal, is designed for handling 1 million container lifts per year and aimed to build upon Charleston’s development of inland ports at Greer and Dillon, South Carolina. Since its original proposal in 2021, cost estimates have risen to $782 million, now-former South Carolina State Ports Authority (SC Ports) Chief Executive Barbara Melvin told a state legislative committee in July. South Carolina appropriated $550 million over 2021 and 2022 for the project. “We are seeing challenges in materials, labor and equipment to build these types of projects,” Melvin told the committee. “All of those have escalated over the last three years of this project.” The Navy Base project, which includes a barge service for moving containers to and from Charleson’s Wando Welch Terminal for rail service, was expected to open this summer. The rail yard will now open in January 2026, with some features not yet ready until 2027. Melvin, who was the port’s chief operating officer before becoming chief executive, announced her resignation from SC Ports last week , without citing a reason. South Carolina State Sen. Sean Bennett, one of the members of the fiscal oversight committee briefed on the project, said in a statement Thursday to the Journal of Commerce the rail yard “remains viable and essential, but the execution has clearly fallen short.” “Cost overruns can’t simply be dismissed as inflation — they reflect deeper issues,” Bennett said. “The Port Authority’s board must step up its responsibilities and provide the leadership and accountability this project requires.” SC Ports said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce it is still moving forward with the project as originally envisioned. Most of the yard’s construction is complete and its six gantry cranes have been installed. Cost overages for the remaining parts of the project are now part of the port’s 2026 capital plan. “This project will boost SC Ports’ already robust intermodal connectivity between the Port of Charleston and inland port markets in the Southeast and beyond,” SC Ports said in the statement. NS needs more access The rail yard itself, originally budgeted at about $400 million in 2021, is now expected to cost $544 million. Improvements to Charleston’s two terminals for barge service, originally budgeted at $150 million, have since increased to $237 million. Across all those, SC Ports faces higher material and labor costs, Melvin told the committee, adding that Leatherman terminal improvement costs have risen 44% since its initial construction in 2019, while nationwide warehouse and concrete construction costs have increased at rates of 25% and 32%, respectively, between 2021 and 2023. Construction costs on the rail yard itself, a former naval base, have also risen due to unexpectedly soft soil, environmental remediation and unforeseen buried infrastructure. Key features of the project will also not be ready in time for the January opening. A one-mile dedicated drayage road between the rail yard and the Leatherman terminal was redesigned after SC Ports did a land swap with a nearby US Coast Guard base. Until that road opens in November 2026, containers will be drayed on 2.5 miles of another industrial road near the port. Some 80,000 feet of rail track connecting to the rail yard from the south to CSX and NS’s main tracks also won’t be fully ready until March 2027, Melvin said, citing the extensive design challenges involving both railroads and various public entities. The tracks have eight street-level crossings through North Charleston. A construction award for the trackage is expected this October. “The southern connection has been the most challenging piece of the project,” Melvin told the committee, adding that steel tariffs will also raise its cost. Until the southern connection opens, only CSX will be able to access the rail yard through its north tracks. In addition to the south access, NS needs four miles of siding for passing trains, the railroad unexpectedly informed SC Ports this summer, Melvin said. The siding is expected to cost about $28 million and was originally thought to be part of NS’ own capital plans, she said. NS said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that it has informed SC Ports for the last decade about what it needs to utilize the site, specifically “tracks leading into the facility as well as construction of a passing siding in North Charleston.” “We remain committed to the success of the Navy Base intermodal facility and to collaborating to get this facility online as quickly as possible,” NS said. Melvin told the state senate committee she expects NS could use the facility as early as October 2026 when the first phase of the southern access is ready. Tariff hit on cranes For barges, SC Ports planned to build a 700-foot berth extension at Wando Welch. But since applying for a permit in 2018 and after four follow-ups, the US Army Corps of Engineers has yet to issue a permit for the berth, Melvin said. She said the berth hoped to win some $45 million in federal grants applied for under the Biden administration, but did not receive the funding. Melvin told the state senate committee SC Ports expects Wando’s barge berth could cost $76 million, “if we can get a permit quickly and proceed, but if we cannot, that price won’t hold.” “We could still operate a barge [at Wando’s existing berths], but it’s not ideal,” she said. The Leatherman terminal’s plans to build another 1,600 feet of berth will allow it to handle a barge along with an additional container ship, Melvin said. However, the original plan only called for adding half that length. Melvin said that given the overall cost increases, SC Ports decided to move ahead with a full extension, adding $53 million to Leatherman’s budget. SC Ports originally budgeted $25 million to purchase ZPMC cranes for the Leatherman extension. But due to the Trump administration’s proposed tariffs on Chinese-made cranes , Melvin said SC Ports increased its crane budget to $34 million based on estimates from four non-Chinese crane makers, but the price could increase further. “You are paying a premium to order non-Chinese cranes,” Melvin said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Intermodal providers

Charleston’s Navy Base rail yard project faces delays, big cost overruns

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

The union claims the Virginia Port Authority is tacitly violating the new master contract’s technology clauses through its influence over the port’s main terminal employer.

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

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

Longshore labor

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

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

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

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

Use code ESSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code ESSGW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Knight-Swift already partners with both UP and NS, so a combined transcontinental railroad would fit nicely into its existing service for shippers.</div>

Knight-Swift already partners with both UP and NS, so a combined transcontinental railroad would fit nicely into its existing service for shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">Knight-Swift Transportation said Tuesday it believes US regulators should approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), becoming the fourth major intermodal provider to publicly back the $85 billion deal. Swift Intermodal, Knight-Swift’s intermodal division, already partners with both UP and NS, making the acquisition a natural fit for its existing intermodal network. A combined transcontinental railroad would require little to no adjustment for Swift, and it could reap the rewards of eliminating time-consuming interchanges in cities such as Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans. “By knitting together a coast-to-coast rail network, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are creating new efficiencies that will benefit everyone — from logistics providers like us to our customers, to the end-consumers,” Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said in a statement. “As a company that operates thousands of trucks and thousands of intermodal containers, we know the power of combining modes. This unified rail system will let us seamlessly integrate our trucking with rail on cross-country shipments like never before.” Knight-Swift’s intermodal division owns about 12,000 containers, hauling nearly 150,000 loads across all North American railroads annually. It is the fifth-largest asset-owning intermodal provider in the US behind J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Hub Group, Schneider National and STG Logistics. Knight-Swift joins <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-ns-deal-would-trigger-unnecessary-wave-of-rail-mergers-cpkc-6069870">C.R. England, Hub Group, and Mode Transportation</a> as supporters of the UP-NS deal, which would create the US’ first transcontinental railroad and requires approval from the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), which could come sometime in 2027. <h3>Political football </h3>While UP and NS have until January to file their formal application to the STB, the railroads received a boost last week when the Trump administration moved to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trump-move-to-oust-stbs-primus-boosts-likelihood-of-up-ns-approval-6070952">fire board member</a> Robert Primus, who has been vocal in his opposition to consolidation in the rail industry. The Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation Union and its transportation division (SMART-TD), has come out against the UP-NS transaction and criticized the attempted removal of Primus. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), another large rail union, has not taken a position on the proposed acquisition. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) opposes the deal and last week ruled out a potential merger with the other eastern US railroad, CSX Transportation. Canadian National Railway has not commented publicly on the UP-NS deal. Schneider National and STG Logistics, two other large asset-based partners of UP, have not taken a position on the proposed acquisition. Both partner with CSX in the eastern US, making a UP-NS transcontinental railroad more complicated for their intermodal networks. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Knight-Swift Transportation said Tuesday it believes US regulators should approve Union Pacific Railroad’s (UP’s) acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway (NS), becoming the fourth major intermodal provider to publicly back the $85 billion deal. Swift Intermodal, Knight-Swift’s intermodal division, already partners with both UP and NS, making the acquisition a natural fit for its existing intermodal network. A combined transcontinental railroad would require little to no adjustment for Swift, and it could reap the rewards of eliminating time-consuming interchanges in cities such as Chicago, Memphis and New Orleans. “By knitting together a coast-to-coast rail network, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are creating new efficiencies that will benefit everyone — from logistics providers like us to our customers, to the end-consumers,” Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said in a statement. “As a company that operates thousands of trucks and thousands of intermodal containers, we know the power of combining modes. This unified rail system will let us seamlessly integrate our trucking with rail on cross-country shipments like never before.” Knight-Swift’s intermodal division owns about 12,000 containers, hauling nearly 150,000 loads across all North American railroads annually. It is the fifth-largest asset-owning intermodal provider in the US behind J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Hub Group, Schneider National and STG Logistics. Knight-Swift joins C.R. England, Hub Group, and Mode Transportation as supporters of the UP-NS deal, which would create the US’ first transcontinental railroad and requires approval from the US Surface Transportation Board (STB), which could come sometime in 2027. Political football While UP and NS have until January to file their formal application to the STB, the railroads received a boost last week when the Trump administration moved to fire board member Robert Primus, who has been vocal in his opposition to consolidation in the rail industry. The Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, Transportation Union and its transportation division (SMART-TD), has come out against the UP-NS transaction and criticized the attempted removal of Primus. The Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen (BLET), another large rail union, has not taken a position on the proposed acquisition. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) opposes the deal and last week ruled out a potential merger with the other eastern US railroad, CSX Transportation. Canadian National Railway has not commented publicly on the UP-NS deal. Schneider National and STG Logistics, two other large asset-based partners of UP, have not taken a position on the proposed acquisition. Both partner with CSX in the eastern US, making a UP-NS transcontinental railroad more complicated for their intermodal networks. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Knight-Swift says it backs Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carriers, because they offer services tailored to their customers’ needs, say they are “sheltered” somewhat from declining spot rates given they are able to charge a premium for those services.</div>

The carriers, because they offer services tailored to their customers’ needs, say they are “sheltered” somewhat from declining spot rates given they are able to charge a premium for those services.

<div class="phx-topic">Several niche carriers that added tonnage to the trans-Pacific trade over the past year say they aren’t going anywhere despite retreating spot rates and the downward pressure tariffs are exerting on US imports from Asia. Those carriers, offering services tailored to their customers’ needs, say they are sheltered somewhat from declining spot rates because they charge a premium for their services that provide expedited ocean transport from Asia and Southeast Asia and, oftentimes, next-day container availability for landside pickup. “We’re fairly sheltered from the spot rates because 80% of our cargo is BCO [beneficial cargo owner] contracted cargo,” said Duncan Wright, president of third-party logistics provider UWL, which offers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/uwl-locks-in-new-vessel-partner-for-trans-pacific-vietnam-service-6032327">the bi-weekly Sun Chief Express service</a> from Vietnam to Seattle. The ocean transit is 19 days from the last port call at Ho Chi Minh City to the Seattle gateway, while most other lines are 20-plus days, Wright told the Journal of Commerce Friday. China-based Hede Shipping in July launched its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hede-shipping-to-launch-third-expedited-service-from-china-to-los-angeles-6034891">third expedited service from China to Los Angeles</a>, zeroing in on the e-commerce sector with its expedited transit times and quick delivery of containers upon discharge from vessels. A Hede representative confirmed that newest service is in operation. Premium niche services offered by UWL, Hede and Matson appeal to BCOs with specific requirements based upon their customers’ needs. For example, customers of UWL’s Sun Chief service focus on footwear importers who are based in Southeast Asia and ship through Seattle, which offers direct inland point intermodal (IPI) rail service to markets such as Minneapolis and Chicago, Wright said. <h3>Huge spot rate swings this year </h3>The niche carriers, which also include SeaLead and CU Lines, entered the trans-Pacific trades in 2024 when spot and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates surged as high as $7,800 per FEU to the US West Coast and $10,000 per FEU to the East Coast, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&amp;P Global. Niche carriers account for about 4.5% of total capacity on the trans-Pacific trade to the West Coast, about the same percentage in the post-COVID-19 import surge in 2021–22, Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, said in his Sunday Spotlight newsletter this week. While that market share is not enough to prevent a further slide in spot rates, the continued presence of the niche lines in the trans-Pacific indicates they are not just “opportunistic” carriers that came into the trade when spot rates were high and plan to leave if rates drop too low, he said. “These carriers are seemingly staying on the trade lane ... and it seems as if they are continuing to introduce capacity on the trade lane,” Murphy said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e9676ea4-c6b9-4589-9a4b-822a9c82e2f8"></dynamic-object></div>Given the volatile nature of the trans-Pacific market so far this year, with major rate spikes in January and June followed by plunging prices in subsequent months, the niche lines apparently have ample cash on hand to weather the current downturn. Spot rates from Asia to the West Coast as of Thursday were $1,500 per FEU, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global; Drewry pegged the market at $2,332 per FEU. “Pulling the plug is a tough decision because the money, when available, was so lucrative there’s the hope such margins will return,” said Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of sales at the forwarder MOL Consolidation Service. “It seems the current operators are taking a hard look at their commitments and calculating a longer-term strategy,” he said. “Maybe the new normal is continued chaos, so the smaller players are staying in place, building a viable clientele, [and] preparing to pounce when another catastrophe hits the liner market,” Nothdurft said. <h3>Premium rates can only do so much </h3>Still, if spot/FAK rates continue to drift below $1,500 to the West Coast, and possibly lower, some niche lines will find it difficult to sustain the losses for very long, an executive at an alliance carrier told the Journal of Commerce. “Even with an upcharge of $500-$600 [per FEU], it’s not going to be enough,” said the executive, who did not want to be identified. “The niche carriers, like all lines, have fixed costs such as bunker fuel, port fees and crew costs.” The source said $2,000 per FEU is the breakeven spot for most carriers’ West Coast business, adding their presence on the eastbound trans-Pacific “can’t last forever.” The challenge these carriers face is that rates are also depressed in the intra-Asia trade, and the small vessels they deploy in the range of 3,000-TEU capacity are not suited for the long-distance Asia-Europe trades, he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/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>

Several niche carriers that added tonnage to the trans-Pacific trade over the past year say they aren’t going anywhere despite retreating spot rates and the downward pressure tariffs are exerting on US imports from Asia. Those carriers, offering services tailored to their customers’ needs, say they are sheltered somewhat from declining spot rates because they charge a premium for their services that provide expedited ocean transport from Asia and Southeast Asia and, oftentimes, next-day container availability for landside pickup. “We’re fairly sheltered from the spot rates because 80% of our cargo is BCO [beneficial cargo owner] contracted cargo,” said Duncan Wright, president of third-party logistics provider UWL, which offers the bi-weekly Sun Chief Express service from Vietnam to Seattle. The ocean transit is 19 days from the last port call at Ho Chi Minh City to the Seattle gateway, while most other lines are 20-plus days, Wright told the Journal of Commerce Friday. China-based Hede Shipping in July launched its third expedited service from China to Los Angeles , zeroing in on the e-commerce sector with its expedited transit times and quick delivery of containers upon discharge from vessels. A Hede representative confirmed that newest service is in operation. Premium niche services offered by UWL, Hede and Matson appeal to BCOs with specific requirements based upon their customers’ needs. For example, customers of UWL’s Sun Chief service focus on footwear importers who are based in Southeast Asia and ship through Seattle, which offers direct inland point intermodal (IPI) rail service to markets such as Minneapolis and Chicago, Wright said. Huge spot rate swings this year The niche carriers, which also include SeaLead and CU Lines, entered the trans-Pacific trades in 2024 when spot and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates surged as high as $7,800 per FEU to the US West Coast and $10,000 per FEU to the East Coast, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&P Global. Niche carriers account for about 4.5% of total capacity on the trans-Pacific trade to the West Coast, about the same percentage in the post-COVID-19 import surge in 2021–22, Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, said in his Sunday Spotlight newsletter this week. While that market share is not enough to prevent a further slide in spot rates, the continued presence of the niche lines in the trans-Pacific indicates they are not just “opportunistic” carriers that came into the trade when spot rates were high and plan to leave if rates drop too low, he said. “These carriers are seemingly staying on the trade lane ... and it seems as if they are continuing to introduce capacity on the trade lane,” Murphy said. Given the volatile nature of the trans-Pacific market so far this year, with major rate spikes in January and June followed by plunging prices in subsequent months, the niche lines apparently have ample cash on hand to weather the current downturn. Spot rates from Asia to the West Coast as of Thursday were $1,500 per FEU, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global; Drewry pegged the market at $2,332 per FEU. “Pulling the plug is a tough decision because the money, when available, was so lucrative there’s the hope such margins will return,” said Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of sales at the forwarder MOL Consolidation Service. “It seems the current operators are taking a hard look at their commitments and calculating a longer-term strategy,” he said. “Maybe the new normal is continued chaos, so the smaller players are staying in place, building a viable clientele, [and] preparing to pounce when another catastrophe hits the liner market,” Nothdurft said. Premium rates can only do so much Still, if spot/FAK rates continue to drift below $1,500 to the West Coast, and possibly lower, some niche lines will find it difficult to sustain the losses for very long, an executive at an alliance carrier told the Journal of Commerce. “Even with an upcharge of $500-$600 [per FEU], it’s not going to be enough,” said the executive, who did not want to be identified. “The niche carriers, like all lines, have fixed costs such as bunker fuel, port fees and crew costs.” The source said $2,000 per FEU is the breakeven spot for most carriers’ West Coast business, adding their presence on the eastbound trans-Pacific “can’t last forever.” The challenge these carriers face is that rates are also depressed in the intra-Asia trade, and the small vessels they deploy in the range of 3,000-TEU capacity are not suited for the long-distance Asia-Europe trades, he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Niche carriers plan to ride out declining spot rates on the trans-Pacific

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

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

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

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

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ocean carriers are seeking to curb the sharp decline in spot rates in the run-up to next month’s Golden Week holiday. </div>

Ocean carriers are seeking to curb the sharp decline in spot rates in the run-up to next month’s Golden Week holiday.

<div class="phx-topic">The next few weeks on the trans-Pacific trade will be telling as time is running out for container lines to adjust capacity to falling demand or risk losing contracted cargo to the spot market. A slight bump last week in container spot rates, as measured by the Platts and Shanghai Shipping Exchange indexes, could be a sign of blank sailings ending the sharp dive in rates that began in late May, or merely a blip. The run-up to Golden Week that starts Oct. 1, a period of slowing China production due to the holiday observance, gives carriers the last major window this year to stem the rate bleed or see shippers neglect contracted allocations in favor of cheaper spot rates. Ocean carriers are seeking rate increases of $800 to $900 per FEU, sources say, with one carrier representative noting the efforts are focused on curbing the rate erosion of the last two months. Container spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast are about $2,000 per FEU, according to various indexes, with the Shanghai Shipping Exchange registering a 65% drop since June. Bullet rates quoted for single voyages tend to be $200 to $300 less than index rates, and some forwarder quotes for US West Coast routings have been as low as $1,300-$1,400 per FEU.Container lines thus far have been modest in blanking capacity despite falling rates and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-project-big-year-over-year-import-declines-to-close-out-2025-6060323">weak forecasts for year-end volumes</a>. But analysts and forwarders warn that a sharp increase in blanks is nearly inevitable. Carriers’ averseness to losing import <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/toll-of-us-tariffs-begins-to-emerge-on-unsettled-trans-pacific-6065761">volumes already weakened by US tariff frontloading</a>, the potential for a late-year surge, and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/niche-carriers-plan-to-ride-out-declining-spot-rates-on-the-trans-pacific-6071722">niche carriers sticking to the trade</a> have kept blanking levels consistent with past years. <h3>More capacity coming in October </h3>Container lines plan to inject more capacity in October, nonetheless, adding nearly 100,000 TEUs more than what’s deployed in September, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. The share of tonnage deployed on Asia to the US West Coast that is made unusable through blank sailings hovered near 8.4% in August, and carriers so far plan to blank a similar proportion of tonnage in September and October, although that can rise as weeks progress. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d0dc514b-60a6-4b10-862a-081c37b36db2"></dynamic-object></div>If carriers can’t adjust demand to supply, they face the risk of more shippers turning to the spot market rather than fulfilling contracted cargo allocations. Spot rates, as measured by various indexes, are at levels that many small and medium-sized shippers signed contracts at in the spring. Short-term ocean rates, as measured by benchmarking provider Xeneta, began falling in early August below contract rates covering 88 days or more. The short-term cost to ship an FEU from Asia to the US West Coast was $1,319 for the week ending Aug. 28, compared with $1,597 for the long-term rate in the same period. “We've got customers who are eager to save $100 anywhere, and they want a piece of that,” said a forwarder who did not want to be identified. “We are not trying to sell it, but when they ask us, ‘What are your FAK rates?’ We can’t tell them, ‘No, we’re not going to offer you our FAK rates,’ especially if it means we’re going to get some incremental business out of it.”<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="98a0037a-3658-44f2-86a3-be3148b993eb"></dynamic-object></div>Small and medium-sized importers signed service contract rates at a larger-than-usual premium than the largest retailers in mid-April just as the market was showing strength, said another forwarder. The largest big-box retailers signed contracts that generally began May 1 in the range of $1,600 to $1,800 per FEU, while midsize and smaller importers secured contract rates in the range of $2,000 to $2,200 per FEU. The danger importers face chasing cheaper spot rates when the rates are falling is that carriers will be loath to help out cargo owners when the market inevitably tightens — even if it’s short-lived. Container lines are more agile in moving vessels to and from ocean trades by omitting calls to ports or voiding sailings, according to an Aug. 28 notice sent by forwarder American Shipping Co. to its customers that was seen by the Journal of Commerce. While such tools to manage capacity haven’t had much impact in recent months, “if timed right, it can have a direct impact on the freight rates,” the notice read. Most shippers are not concerned about carriers charging them for dead freight if they do not fill the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in their contracts because, historically, carriers have never done that. Carriers normally roll over the unused MQCs into the next year’s contracts. So far, the shift from contracted cargo to spot cargo has been minimal, according to forwarders and carriers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce. But the inflection point is getting closer. “It could happen” that more BCOs turn to the spot market if rates reverse course in the coming weeks and begin dropping again toward $1,600 to the West Coast and $2,600 to the East Coast, said Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at forwarder DSV Global Logistics. “If the West Coast spot rate sinks to $1,400, some BCOs will seek to reopen their contracts, or they could book more under spot,” Kauffman said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. Senior Editor Bill Mongelluzzo and Associate Editor Laura Robb contributed to this report. </div>

The next few weeks on the trans-Pacific trade will be telling as time is running out for container lines to adjust capacity to falling demand or risk losing contracted cargo to the spot market. A slight bump last week in container spot rates, as measured by the Platts and Shanghai Shipping Exchange indexes, could be a sign of blank sailings ending the sharp dive in rates that began in late May, or merely a blip. The run-up to Golden Week that starts Oct. 1, a period of slowing China production due to the holiday observance, gives carriers the last major window this year to stem the rate bleed or see shippers neglect contracted allocations in favor of cheaper spot rates. Ocean carriers are seeking rate increases of $800 to $900 per FEU, sources say, with one carrier representative noting the efforts are focused on curbing the rate erosion of the last two months. Container spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast are about $2,000 per FEU, according to various indexes, with the Shanghai Shipping Exchange registering a 65% drop since June. Bullet rates quoted for single voyages tend to be $200 to $300 less than index rates, and some forwarder quotes for US West Coast routings have been as low as $1,300-$1,400 per FEU. Container lines thus far have been modest in blanking capacity despite falling rates and weak forecasts for year-end volumes . But analysts and forwarders warn that a sharp increase in blanks is nearly inevitable. Carriers’ averseness to losing import volumes already weakened by US tariff frontloading , the potential for a late-year surge, and niche carriers sticking to the trade have kept blanking levels consistent with past years. More capacity coming in October Container lines plan to inject more capacity in October, nonetheless, adding nearly 100,000 TEUs more than what’s deployed in September, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. The share of tonnage deployed on Asia to the US West Coast that is made unusable through blank sailings hovered near 8.4% in August, and carriers so far plan to blank a similar proportion of tonnage in September and October, although that can rise as weeks progress. If carriers can’t adjust demand to supply, they face the risk of more shippers turning to the spot market rather than fulfilling contracted cargo allocations. Spot rates, as measured by various indexes, are at levels that many small and medium-sized shippers signed contracts at in the spring. Short-term ocean rates, as measured by benchmarking provider Xeneta, began falling in early August below contract rates covering 88 days or more. The short-term cost to ship an FEU from Asia to the US West Coast was $1,319 for the week ending Aug. 28, compared with $1,597 for the long-term rate in the same period. “We've got customers who are eager to save $100 anywhere, and they want a piece of that,” said a forwarder who did not want to be identified. “We are not trying to sell it, but when they ask us, ‘What are your FAK rates?’ We can’t tell them, ‘No, we’re not going to offer you our FAK rates,’ especially if it means we’re going to get some incremental business out of it.” Small and medium-sized importers signed service contract rates at a larger-than-usual premium than the largest retailers in mid-April just as the market was showing strength, said another forwarder. The largest big-box retailers signed contracts that generally began May 1 in the range of $1,600 to $1,800 per FEU, while midsize and smaller importers secured contract rates in the range of $2,000 to $2,200 per FEU. The danger importers face chasing cheaper spot rates when the rates are falling is that carriers will be loath to help out cargo owners when the market inevitably tightens — even if it’s short-lived. Container lines are more agile in moving vessels to and from ocean trades by omitting calls to ports or voiding sailings, according to an Aug. 28 notice sent by forwarder American Shipping Co. to its customers that was seen by the Journal of Commerce. While such tools to manage capacity haven’t had much impact in recent months, “if timed right, it can have a direct impact on the freight rates,” the notice read. Most shippers are not concerned about carriers charging them for dead freight if they do not fill the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in their contracts because, historically, carriers have never done that. Carriers normally roll over the unused MQCs into the next year’s contracts. So far, the shift from contracted cargo to spot cargo has been minimal, according to forwarders and carriers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce. But the inflection point is getting closer. “It could happen” that more BCOs turn to the spot market if rates reverse course in the coming weeks and begin dropping again toward $1,600 to the West Coast and $2,600 to the East Coast, said Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at forwarder DSV Global Logistics. “If the West Coast spot rate sinks to $1,400, some BCOs will seek to reopen their contracts, or they could book more under spot,” Kauffman said. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com . Senior Editor Bill Mongelluzzo and Associate Editor Laura Robb contributed to this report.

US ports look to Congress for tax breaks on replacing Chinese cranes

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Trump move to oust STB’s Primus boosts likelihood of UP-NS approval

Charleston’s Navy Base rail yard project faces delays, big cost overruns

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

Recent Commentary

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Top 5 Most Read Stories