<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The National Shipper Advisory Committee, which guides the maritime regulator on ocean freight issues, meets once a year to drive policy decisions.</div>

The National Shipper Advisory Committee, which guides the maritime regulator on ocean freight issues, meets once a year to drive policy decisions.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Thursday said it is searching for new members to serve on its National Shipper Advisory Committee (NSAC), which advises the federal agency on policy related to ocean freight. The advisory committee, composed of 24 individuals representing import and export cargo interests, specifically counsels the FMC on issues of supply chain competitiveness, reliability, integrity, and fairness. The committee is evenly split between import and export entities. “The commission intends for membership to reflect a balanced mix of shippers, and selections will be made based on factors such as commodities shipped, ports used, geographic areas served, and origins of cargo, as well as other relevant factors,” the FMC said in a statement. The agency added it was “looking for applicants with extensive shipping and US oceanic supply chain knowledge, as well as an eagerness to collaborate and share their expertise on various issues...” The NSAC, originally formed in 2021, has provided guidance on an array of issues, from <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bentzel-wants-partial-fmc-oversight-over-rail-demurrage-5243057">rail demurrage</a> and a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-draft-legislation-seeks-to-update-osra-22-boost-china-scrutiny-5220516">rewrite of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act</a> (OSRA) during the pandemic, to more recent efforts, including <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-rules-for-truckers-in-chassis-dispute-with-ocean-carriers-5234355">chassis disputes</a> with ocean carriers and a push for a “<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/shipper-bill-of-rights-takes-aim-at-ocean-carrier-accountability-transparency-5958197">shipper’s bill of rights</a>.” Some NASC members have privately expressed concerns that the FMC wasn’t sure how to handle its recommendations, partly due to the committee being the first of its kind to report to the agency. <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/14/2026-09667/solicitation-for-applications-to-serve-as-members-on-the-national-shipper-advisory-committee">NSAC members serve three-year terms</a>, with the committee meeting at least once a year, although more frequent meetings can potentially be convened by the FMC or a majority of committee members. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Thursday said it is searching for new members to serve on its National Shipper Advisory Committee (NSAC), which advises the federal agency on policy related to ocean freight. The advisory committee, composed of 24 individuals representing import and export cargo interests, specifically counsels the FMC on issues of supply chain competitiveness, reliability, integrity, and fairness. The committee is evenly split between import and export entities. “The commission intends for membership to reflect a balanced mix of shippers, and selections will be made based on factors such as commodities shipped, ports used, geographic areas served, and origins of cargo, as well as other relevant factors,” the FMC said in a statement. The agency added it was “looking for applicants with extensive shipping and US oceanic supply chain knowledge, as well as an eagerness to collaborate and share their expertise on various issues...” The NSAC, originally formed in 2021, has provided guidance on an array of issues, from rail demurrage and a rewrite of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act (OSRA) during the pandemic, to more recent efforts, including chassis disputes with ocean carriers and a push for a “ shipper’s bill of rights .” Some NASC members have privately expressed concerns that the FMC wasn’t sure how to handle its recommendations, partly due to the committee being the first of its kind to report to the agency. NSAC members serve three-year terms , with the committee meeting at least once a year, although more frequent meetings can potentially be convened by the FMC or a majority of committee members. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Maritime

FMC searching for new members to serve on shipper advisory board

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The producer price indexes for truckload and LTL transportation in the US both leapt about 20% year over year in April, revealing growing pressure on supply chains.</div>

The producer price indexes for truckload and LTL transportation in the US both leapt about 20% year over year in April, revealing growing pressure on supply chains.

<div class="phx-topic">The US producer price indexes (PPIs) for trucking last month leapt in nearly vertical lines so steep they could cause vertigo. The long-distance truckload PPI jumped 11.4% in April from March, reaching 202.2, according to data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Wednesday. That’s an 18.9% year-over-year increase for the all-inclusive measure of truckload pricing. April’s less-than-truckload (LTL) PPI shot up 12% from March and climbed 20% year over year to a record-breaking 311 — the biggest annualized increase in the LTL index since June 2022. In comparison, the April PPI for intermodal freight rail transportation was flat from March and only up less than 1 percentage point year over year, BLS data showed. The trucking PPIs represent final “selling prices” paid by thousands of shippers, including fuel surcharges and spot and contract base rates. The April PPIs show the impact of war-driven diesel prices in the US that have been more than 50% higher year over year since March 23. The average US retail diesel as of May 11 was $5.64 per gallon, flat with the previous week but up 62.2% from a year ago, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The US average diesel price has been above $5 per gallon for nine weeks. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="dd129e5b-5d7d-4cc2-a3fe-d9f34fdebe58"></dynamic-object></div>The PPIs for truckload and LTL services rose even quicker than aggregate US producer prices, which were up 1.4% from March in April and up 6% year over year, according to the BLS. The April increase is the largest advance for the PPI since a 1.7% leap in March 2022. The consumer price index (CPI), a measure of inflation, rose 3.8% year over year in April. Subtracting food and energy costs, the CPI rose 2.8% year over year. The PPIs are likely to stay elevated, buoyed by fuel prices, in particular the cost of diesel, which is used across freight transportation modes. Higher energy costs are inflating cost pressures throughout supply chains. The New York Federal Reserve Bank’s <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/policy/gscpi#/interactive">Global Supply Chain Pressure Index</a> (GSCPI) rose from 0.68 in March to 1.82 in April, a leap that closely matches the trajectory of the trucking PPIs. <h3>‘Surcharges on everything’ </h3>Shippers are seeing the immediate impact of the diesel price spike in higher fuel surcharges from their transportation and logistics providers. “As soon as we have to haul anything anywhere, there’s fuel surcharges on everything,” Amardeip Singh Doman, CEO of Doman Building Materials Group, said in a quarterly earnings call Monday. “We’re doing the best we can to navigate through that.” Doman, which distributes lumber and other building products throughout the US, is trying to pass the higher cost of surcharges through to customers, where possible, he said, noting: “We’re just trying to break even if we can on it and push it through.” Shippers are <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rising-fuel-costs-forcing-us-truck-shippers-to-shift-freight-6214133">struggling to respond</a> to rapid price increases, said Jenny Vander Zandem, COO of transportation and fuel management company Breakthrough. “They don’t have many levers they can pull” to quickly mitigate higher costs, she said in an interview. And that’s forcing shippers to consider the prospect of higher fuel costs long term. “Forecasts have moved from something we would do annually to quarterly, monthly and now even more frequently with clients,” said Vander Zandem. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="4f41d0db-fdca-4d0e-841e-6a45e944cc38"></dynamic-object></div>Whether the Strait of Hormuz is reopened or not, high diesel prices will linger, Matt Muenster, chief economist at Breakthrough, told the Journal of Commerce. From ports to inland truck stops, “this is a low sulfur fuel conundrum,” Muenster said. “There’s a structural challenge at work here because refiners can’t just increase production for these particular fuels.” US production, he said, is geared toward gasoline. US diesel inventories are down 11% from their five-year average, Muenster said, as the US continues to export diesel. “We’re going to have more stress in the diesel market in autumn when agriculture and transportation put more heat under the diesel barrel,” he said. “Summer usually offers time for diesel inventories to build, but if they continue to draw it will add pressure.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US producer price indexes (PPIs) for trucking last month leapt in nearly vertical lines so steep they could cause vertigo. The long-distance truckload PPI jumped 11.4% in April from March, reaching 202.2, according to data released by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Wednesday. That’s an 18.9% year-over-year increase for the all-inclusive measure of truckload pricing. April’s less-than-truckload (LTL) PPI shot up 12% from March and climbed 20% year over year to a record-breaking 311 — the biggest annualized increase in the LTL index since June 2022. In comparison, the April PPI for intermodal freight rail transportation was flat from March and only up less than 1 percentage point year over year, BLS data showed. The trucking PPIs represent final “selling prices” paid by thousands of shippers, including fuel surcharges and spot and contract base rates. The April PPIs show the impact of war-driven diesel prices in the US that have been more than 50% higher year over year since March 23. The average US retail diesel as of May 11 was $5.64 per gallon, flat with the previous week but up 62.2% from a year ago, according to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA). The US average diesel price has been above $5 per gallon for nine weeks. The PPIs for truckload and LTL services rose even quicker than aggregate US producer prices, which were up 1.4% from March in April and up 6% year over year, according to the BLS. The April increase is the largest advance for the PPI since a 1.7% leap in March 2022. The consumer price index (CPI), a measure of inflation, rose 3.8% year over year in April. Subtracting food and energy costs, the CPI rose 2.8% year over year. The PPIs are likely to stay elevated, buoyed by fuel prices, in particular the cost of diesel, which is used across freight transportation modes. Higher energy costs are inflating cost pressures throughout supply chains. The New York Federal Reserve Bank’s Global Supply Chain Pressure Index (GSCPI) rose from 0.68 in March to 1.82 in April, a leap that closely matches the trajectory of the trucking PPIs. ‘Surcharges on everything’ Shippers are seeing the immediate impact of the diesel price spike in higher fuel surcharges from their transportation and logistics providers. “As soon as we have to haul anything anywhere, there’s fuel surcharges on everything,” Amardeip Singh Doman, CEO of Doman Building Materials Group, said in a quarterly earnings call Monday. “We’re doing the best we can to navigate through that.” Doman, which distributes lumber and other building products throughout the US, is trying to pass the higher cost of surcharges through to customers, where possible, he said, noting: “We’re just trying to break even if we can on it and push it through.” Shippers are struggling to respond to rapid price increases, said Jenny Vander Zandem, COO of transportation and fuel management company Breakthrough. “They don’t have many levers they can pull” to quickly mitigate higher costs, she said in an interview. And that’s forcing shippers to consider the prospect of higher fuel costs long term. “Forecasts have moved from something we would do annually to quarterly, monthly and now even more frequently with clients,” said Vander Zandem. Whether the Strait of Hormuz is reopened or not, high diesel prices will linger, Matt Muenster, chief economist at Breakthrough, told the Journal of Commerce. From ports to inland truck stops, “this is a low sulfur fuel conundrum,” Muenster said. “There’s a structural challenge at work here because refiners can’t just increase production for these particular fuels.” US production, he said, is geared toward gasoline. US diesel inventories are down 11% from their five-year average, Muenster said, as the US continues to export diesel. “We’re going to have more stress in the diesel market in autumn when agriculture and transportation put more heat under the diesel barrel,” he said. “Summer usually offers time for diesel inventories to build, but if they continue to draw it will add pressure.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Rail News

Truckload

Surface

War-driven fuel prices send trucking PPIs, shipper costs skyward

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

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

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

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

Truck brokers

Trucking labor

Supreme Court ruling strips broker protection linked to carrier safety

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Terminal operators and port authorities must transition from their historic, passive roles as infrastructure caretakers into active orchestrators of integrated logistics ecosystems, writes Robbert van Trooijen.</div>

Terminal operators and port authorities must transition from their historic, passive roles as infrastructure caretakers into active orchestrators of integrated logistics ecosystems, writes Robbert van Trooijen.

<div class="phx-topic">In my <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/landside-infrastructure-is-container-shippings-next-great-chokepoint-6209457">most recent piece for the Journal of Commerce</a>, I argued that the real battle for supply chains has shifted inland. Building larger vessels or rushing mega-alliances into service will not solve systemic disruptions if vessels can’t find a berth. So, naturally, many players in the ports and terminals sector place great emphasis on engineering inside the gate. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6220550_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Whether investing in a greenfield project or expanding a brownfield footprint, port authorities and gateway terminal operators tend to focus most of their attention on the infrastructure and hardware within the gate, such as the draft alongside, the length of the quayside, the deployment of super post-Panamax gantry cranes, the projected yard density, and straddle carrier fleets. After all, these are the things that matter to the primary customers, the ocean carriers. However, even with electrification and automation, hardware tends to be less of a differentiator these days. Most modern terminals have deep draft, 25 to 30 gross moves per hour, efficient quayside operations, and some degree of automation. So where does it go wrong? We all know the infamous “white elephants”: state-of-the-art terminals built to world-class specifications that ultimately failed to achieve a decent return on investment. Although it may come across as an oversimplification, I would argue that one of the reasons for waning loyalty or suboptimal results, particularly for competing gateway terminals serving the same catchment area, is that the operators treated the long-term loyalty of the shipper or consignee as an afterthought. Back in 2007, I witnessed Thomas W. Malnight, then a leading professor of strategy and general management at IMD business school, teach a master class where he challenged the maritime community with a radical strategic shift. Malnight advocated that port ecosystems must look past their immediate ocean carrier clients and focus more on “the customer’s customer” — the shipper or consignee. He taught us that the ultimate metric of a gateway terminal’s value is how effectively it can convince the cargo owner to remain anchored to that specific ecosystem over a decade. The rationale is surprisingly simple: Once a large enough number of beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) are loyal to a port ecosystem, the ocean carriers will follow suit, and the tables have turned. To achieve this, terminal operators and port authorities must transition from their historic, passive roles as infrastructure caretakers into active orchestrators of integrated logistics ecosystems. This pivot requires moving beyond the traditional port gate to discover what end-users genuinely require to secure long-term cargo commitments. <h3>Shippers’ needs transcend infrastructure </h3>When we ask BCOs what they need, the answers transcend fundamental maritime infrastructure. Shippers do not build supply chain resilience around the number of container cranes on a dock. They demand reliable, seamless multimodal connections, including hinterland rail access and barge routes. They seek competitive trade environments such as specialized free zone setups equipped with bonded warehouses, cross-docking hubs, cold chain infrastructure, [potentially] air-sea setups for high-value goods, and access to an affordable and strategically located hinterland optimized for potential assembly plants. Constructing this caliber of landside ecosystem is difficult to achieve for a port authority acting in isolation. But with a clear master plan that includes collaboration among provincial, state and municipal public bodies; private investors; and diverse logistics service providers, the foundation is there for long-term success. Robbert van Trooijen, founder of Inception Partners and a McKinsey Senior Advisor, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&amp;O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at <a href="mailto:robbert@inceptionpartners.org">robbert@inceptionpartners.org</a>. </div>

In my most recent piece for the Journal of Commerce, I argued that the real battle for supply chains has shifted inland. Building larger vessels or rushing mega-alliances into service will not solve systemic disruptions if vessels can’t find a berth. So, naturally, many players in the ports and terminals sector place great emphasis on engineering inside the gate. Whether investing in a greenfield project or expanding a brownfield footprint, port authorities and gateway terminal operators tend to focus most of their attention on the infrastructure and hardware within the gate, such as the draft alongside, the length of the quayside, the deployment of super post-Panamax gantry cranes, the projected yard density, and straddle carrier fleets. After all, these are the things that matter to the primary customers, the ocean carriers. However, even with electrification and automation, hardware tends to be less of a differentiator these days. Most modern terminals have deep draft, 25 to 30 gross moves per hour, efficient quayside operations, and some degree of automation. So where does it go wrong? We all know the infamous “white elephants”: state-of-the-art terminals built to world-class specifications that ultimately failed to achieve a decent return on investment. Although it may come across as an oversimplification, I would argue that one of the reasons for waning loyalty or suboptimal results, particularly for competing gateway terminals serving the same catchment area, is that the operators treated the long-term loyalty of the shipper or consignee as an afterthought. Back in 2007, I witnessed Thomas W. Malnight, then a leading professor of strategy and general management at IMD business school, teach a master class where he challenged the maritime community with a radical strategic shift. Malnight advocated that port ecosystems must look past their immediate ocean carrier clients and focus more on “the customer’s customer” — the shipper or consignee. He taught us that the ultimate metric of a gateway terminal’s value is how effectively it can convince the cargo owner to remain anchored to that specific ecosystem over a decade. The rationale is surprisingly simple: Once a large enough number of beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) are loyal to a port ecosystem, the ocean carriers will follow suit, and the tables have turned. To achieve this, terminal operators and port authorities must transition from their historic, passive roles as infrastructure caretakers into active orchestrators of integrated logistics ecosystems. This pivot requires moving beyond the traditional port gate to discover what end-users genuinely require to secure long-term cargo commitments. Shippers’ needs transcend infrastructure When we ask BCOs what they need, the answers transcend fundamental maritime infrastructure. Shippers do not build supply chain resilience around the number of container cranes on a dock. They demand reliable, seamless multimodal connections, including hinterland rail access and barge routes. They seek competitive trade environments such as specialized free zone setups equipped with bonded warehouses, cross-docking hubs, cold chain infrastructure, [potentially] air-sea setups for high-value goods, and access to an affordable and strategically located hinterland optimized for potential assembly plants. Constructing this caliber of landside ecosystem is difficult to achieve for a port authority acting in isolation. But with a clear master plan that includes collaboration among provincial, state and municipal public bodies; private investors; and diverse logistics service providers, the foundation is there for long-term success. Robbert van Trooijen, founder of Inception Partners and a McKinsey Senior Advisor, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at robbert@inceptionpartners.org .

Supply chain

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

Beyond the terminal gate: Why the future lies in logistical ecosystems

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

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

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

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

Port News

Drayage

International ports

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Highlighting the impact of lower freight rates in its first-quarter financials, Taiwan’s largest ocean carrier recorded a 22% year-over-year drop in average revenue per TEU, to $968/TEU. </div>

Highlighting the impact of lower freight rates in its first-quarter financials, Taiwan’s largest ocean carrier recorded a 22% year-over-year drop in average revenue per TEU, to $968/TEU.

<div class="phx-topic">Taiwan’s largest container line reported a 71% drop in first-quarter net profit Thursday, citing sharply lower freight rates in the period. Evergreen Marine, in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange, said its first-quarter net profit fell to $263 million from $897 million a year earlier. Revenue was down 25% to $2.7 billion. Highlighting the impact of lower freight rates in its first-quarter financials, Evergreen saw a 22% year-over-year drop in average revenue per TEU, to $968/TEU. Evergreen noted the biggest rate drop was on Asia-US East Coast trades, with index levels falling 66% to $1,533 per FEU in the first quarter, according to Shanghai Shipping Exchange data. Rate levels on Asia-Mediterranean trades fell 47% to $1,489/TEU. The carrier’s container volumes in the quarter were unchanged at 2.6 million TEUs. Evergreen, in a separate stock exchange filing Thursday, said its directors had agreed to spend $61.5 million to buy 18,000 shipping containers from the carrier’s container-making subsidiary, Evergreen Heavy Industrial Corporation (Malaysia). Evergreen is the seventh-largest ocean carrier globally, with 1.95 million TEUs of capacity in service, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The other two carriers in Taiwan’s Big Three, Yang Ming and Wan Hai, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/yang-ming-to-develop-cargo-base-to-offset-trade-geopolitical-uncertainties-6219998">reported their first-quarter financials earlier this week</a>, with both posting declines in net profit and revenues. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Taiwan’s largest container line reported a 71% drop in first-quarter net profit Thursday, citing sharply lower freight rates in the period. Evergreen Marine, in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange, said its first-quarter net profit fell to $263 million from $897 million a year earlier. Revenue was down 25% to $2.7 billion. Highlighting the impact of lower freight rates in its first-quarter financials, Evergreen saw a 22% year-over-year drop in average revenue per TEU, to $968/TEU. Evergreen noted the biggest rate drop was on Asia-US East Coast trades, with index levels falling 66% to $1,533 per FEU in the first quarter, according to Shanghai Shipping Exchange data. Rate levels on Asia-Mediterranean trades fell 47% to $1,489/TEU. The carrier’s container volumes in the quarter were unchanged at 2.6 million TEUs. Evergreen, in a separate stock exchange filing Thursday, said its directors had agreed to spend $61.5 million to buy 18,000 shipping containers from the carrier’s container-making subsidiary, Evergreen Heavy Industrial Corporation (Malaysia). Evergreen is the seventh-largest ocean carrier globally, with 1.95 million TEUs of capacity in service, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The other two carriers in Taiwan’s Big Three, Yang Ming and Wan Hai, reported their first-quarter financials earlier this week , with both posting declines in net profit and revenues. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Softer freight rates push Evergreen to 71% decline in Q1 net profit

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

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

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

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

A shipper’s decision framework for Amazon Supply Chain Services

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The state has pumped money into Portland’s T-6 and other projects with the belief the state required its own infrastructure – despite the availability of cost-effective solutions from California and Washington state ports. </div>

The state has pumped money into Portland’s T-6 and other projects with the belief the state required its own infrastructure – despite the availability of cost-effective solutions from California and Washington state ports.

<div class="phx-topic">Oregon's state motto is Alis volat propriis, which translates to, "She flies with her own wings." I am many years removed from high school Latin. However, when applied to the state’s surface freight transportation policy, I might suggest agere ex tempore (“to act on the spur of the moment.”) Recently, the Port of Portland <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/operator-switch-gives-renewed-hope-to-portlands-terminal-6-6148433">reopened Oregon Container Terminal</a> (OCT) – nee Terminal 6 (T-6) – amid hopes that the latest private management agreement will help revive the port as a trans-Pacific container gateway. (It is already a major bulk and auto gateway.) This effort was supported by tens of millions of public dollars, T-6 has quite a history. It was opened in the late 1970s, operated by the port, and it developed an extensive on-dock rail facility in 1987 where “K” Line (my employer at the time) centered its westbound Pacific Northwest service. Vessels discharged eastbound intermodal and reloaded local export at Tacoma, whereby the vessel then proceeded to Portland. There it discharged local Portland imports and loaded local exports and westbound intermodal – both rail and Columbia/Snake River barge. It was a smooth and seamless operation. However, in the 1990s, ocean carriers were convinced that they needed to own and operate their own marine terminals. Portland resisted this vertical integration. It also had to deal with the urban legend of being a “river port” with the notorious bar to cross at Astoria. A more significant issue was the loss of the barge feeder in favor of trucking to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. The reason was the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 which ensured the end of shipping conferences. For many years, “K” Line defended the barge business by claiming that any attempt to truck the volumes to Sea/Tac was an impermissible cross-subsidy that was prohibited under conference rules. This legerdemain was supported by selective accounting. The barge linehaul cost was lower than truck; however, the terminal handling at either end was buried and never considered. Once the TWRA Conference disappeared, the question became moot and the volume converted to truck to SeaTac. The Port of Portland, under the able leadership of Bill Wyatt and Sam Ruda, ultimately yielded to private operation, and International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) was awarded a 25-year lease in 2010. It was terminated in 2017, following years of acrimonious labor disputes with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). Some industry observers believe that Oregon’s “build it and they will come” policy is just a case of throwing good money after bad. Unfortunately, T-6 is not the only case. The state spent $35 million to build the Mid-Willamette Valley Intermodal Center. This 64-acre intermodal hub in Millersburg, Oregon, opened in December 2022 – and closed fourteen months later without having moved a single container. Ironically, the rail movement connected to SeaTac, not T-6. As bad as Millersburg was, it got further than another Oregon project. The Treasure Valley Reload Center in Nyssa, Oregon, never even opened after receiving $25 million in state funding. <h3>Coos Bay proposal </h3>And, while barely keeping T-6 operational, there is an effort to establish yet another <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/oregon-earmarks-funds-for-proposed-coos-bay-terminal-6039724">Oregon container terminal at Coos Bay</a>. If Coos Bay was a cat, it would be on its fourth or fifth life. It evolved as a 19th century deepwater harbor serving regional fishing, shipping and timber. 20th century changes to forest-product economics saw the port diversify into other bulk commodities. The 21st century plan for an LNG export terminal -- and pipeline – could not overcome public controversy. While Coos Bay has deep water ocean entry, it lacks both highway and rail access that would take billions and unknown time to develop. Nevertheless, the project has secured significant federal funding, including a $25 million INFRA grant, to assist with planning, environmental compliance, and design. Local stakeholder alignment and funding/permitting for infrastructure are still problematic. All the while, the I-5 Bridge replacement, a critical link connecting Portland and Vancouver, Washington, is expected to cost $14.4 billion. This represents a significant increase from the 2022 price tag of $5 to $7.5 billion (and the original price tag of $2 to $3 billion.) Oregon has pumped money into T-6 and other projects with the belief the state required its own infrastructure – despite the availability of cost-effective solutions from California and Washington state ports. It might consider the saying “winging it is the art of trusting the next right move without a map.” Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

Oregon's state motto is Alis volat propriis, which translates to, "She flies with her own wings." I am many years removed from high school Latin. However, when applied to the state’s surface freight transportation policy, I might suggest agere ex tempore (“to act on the spur of the moment.”) Recently, the Port of Portland reopened Oregon Container Terminal (OCT) – nee Terminal 6 (T-6) – amid hopes that the latest private management agreement will help revive the port as a trans-Pacific container gateway. (It is already a major bulk and auto gateway.) This effort was supported by tens of millions of public dollars, T-6 has quite a history. It was opened in the late 1970s, operated by the port, and it developed an extensive on-dock rail facility in 1987 where “K” Line (my employer at the time) centered its westbound Pacific Northwest service. Vessels discharged eastbound intermodal and reloaded local export at Tacoma, whereby the vessel then proceeded to Portland. There it discharged local Portland imports and loaded local exports and westbound intermodal – both rail and Columbia/Snake River barge. It was a smooth and seamless operation. However, in the 1990s, ocean carriers were convinced that they needed to own and operate their own marine terminals. Portland resisted this vertical integration. It also had to deal with the urban legend of being a “river port” with the notorious bar to cross at Astoria. A more significant issue was the loss of the barge feeder in favor of trucking to the ports of Seattle and Tacoma. The reason was the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 1998 which ensured the end of shipping conferences. For many years, “K” Line defended the barge business by claiming that any attempt to truck the volumes to Sea/Tac was an impermissible cross-subsidy that was prohibited under conference rules. This legerdemain was supported by selective accounting. The barge linehaul cost was lower than truck; however, the terminal handling at either end was buried and never considered. Once the TWRA Conference disappeared, the question became moot and the volume converted to truck to SeaTac. The Port of Portland, under the able leadership of Bill Wyatt and Sam Ruda, ultimately yielded to private operation, and International Container Terminal Services, Inc. (ICTSI) was awarded a 25-year lease in 2010. It was terminated in 2017, following years of acrimonious labor disputes with the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). Some industry observers believe that Oregon’s “build it and they will come” policy is just a case of throwing good money after bad. Unfortunately, T-6 is not the only case. The state spent $35 million to build the Mid-Willamette Valley Intermodal Center. This 64-acre intermodal hub in Millersburg, Oregon, opened in December 2022 – and closed fourteen months later without having moved a single container. Ironically, the rail movement connected to SeaTac, not T-6. As bad as Millersburg was, it got further than another Oregon project. The Treasure Valley Reload Center in Nyssa, Oregon, never even opened after receiving $25 million in state funding. Coos Bay proposal And, while barely keeping T-6 operational, there is an effort to establish yet another Oregon container terminal at Coos Bay . If Coos Bay was a cat, it would be on its fourth or fifth life. It evolved as a 19th century deepwater harbor serving regional fishing, shipping and timber. 20th century changes to forest-product economics saw the port diversify into other bulk commodities. The 21st century plan for an LNG export terminal -- and pipeline – could not overcome public controversy. While Coos Bay has deep water ocean entry, it lacks both highway and rail access that would take billions and unknown time to develop. Nevertheless, the project has secured significant federal funding, including a $25 million INFRA grant, to assist with planning, environmental compliance, and design. Local stakeholder alignment and funding/permitting for infrastructure are still problematic. All the while, the I-5 Bridge replacement, a critical link connecting Portland and Vancouver, Washington, is expected to cost $14.4 billion. This represents a significant increase from the 2022 price tag of $5 to $7.5 billion (and the original price tag of $2 to $3 billion.) Oregon has pumped money into T-6 and other projects with the belief the state required its own infrastructure – despite the availability of cost-effective solutions from California and Washington state ports. It might consider the saying “winging it is the art of trusting the next right move without a map.” Ted Prince is founder and CEO of Tri-Cities Intermodal LLC. Contact him at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

North American ports

Oregon’s strategy for logistics projects: ‘wing it’ and hope

Indian Subcontinent to US East Coast

{date.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
 Y-o-Y change: {previous_year_spot_rate_change_india_to_east_coast.formatNumber('##,##')} 
W-o-W change: {previous_week_spot_rate_change_india_to_east_coast.formatNumber('##,## %')}

S&P Global Platts editors engaging with market participants to assess the current value of freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates on major container trades produce container spot rates. The rates include bunker adjustment factors, general rate increases and emergency rare restoration. They also include low-sulfur fuel, equipment imbalance and repositioning surcharges. The rates exclude terminal handling, port security, overweight container, delivery, and detention and demurrage charges. [Platts](https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights)

Indian subcontinent to US East Coast container spot rates (Platts)

Platts Indian Subcontinent Asia to US East Coast Weekly Gateway

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<div class="phx-topic">The traditional peak shipping season in the US may effectively pass unnoticed this year, a major retail group suggested Friday, citing weak consumer confidence and retailers hesitant to launch any meaningful restocking given a hazy economic outlook. The war with Iran, now in its third month, is the prime mover behind the economic uncertainty, the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates indicated in their latest Global Port Tracker (GPT). “With inflation rising and consumer confidence falling among global economic uncertainty driven by the conflict in Iran, the overall trend of lower imports is expected to continue...,” Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy, said in a statement accompanying the group’s forecast. The NRF said US imports in May and June will actually be moderately higher than the year-ago figures, but noted that growth is largely artificial because it’s being compared with May and June 2025 when imports fell sharply following the Trump administration’s implementation of widespread tariffs that April. The true import picture will come into focus in the heart of summer, with the NRF’s July forecast of 2.2 million TEUs down almost 8% year over year. And things will weaken progressively from there, despite August being the traditional start of peak shipping season when retailers stock up ahead of the year-end holidays. The NRF projects August imports at 2.19 million TEUs, down 5.5% year over year; and September at 2.08 million TEUs, 1.3% below the year prior. The fact that September — typically the heart of peak season — is forecast to be one of the weaker import months of 2026 is especially telling. “Containerized imports in the first quarter were down year over year, and forward demand is weakening,” Hackett Associates founder Ben Hackett said in the statement. “<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/potential-new-us-tariffs-cloud-sourcing-strategies-peak-season-demand-6187613">Stalling restocking efforts</a> and rising geopolitical tensions are increasingly clouding the outlook.” This year would be the second in a row without the typical August through October peak season, following last year’s tariff-linked disruptions. “It’s not like we have a traditional peak season anymore,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at the forwarder MTS Logistics. “There may be a couple months peak, year over year, but at the end of the day, the expectations are not that great right now from our customers and from what I’m hearing from industry and from other companies too.” Encouragingly, booking demand is increasing according to an index that has shown sluggish China import ordering since January. The index, based on data from customers of maritime intelligence provider Vizion, hit its 2026 high of 110 in the week ended April 23, the most recent data available, after moving into positive territory earlier in April. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7d86750c-8893-4dce-b975-ce01d1c27532"></dynamic-object></div><h3>Consumer confidence at new low </h3>Meanwhile, fresh consumer indicators were grim. The University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index, out Friday, fell to a new record low of 48.2, down from 49.8 in April. “About one-third of consumers [surveyed] spontaneously mentioned gasoline prices and about 30% mentioned tariffs. Taken together, consumers continue to feel buffeted by cost pressures, led by soaring prices at the pump,” Joanne Hsu, the survey’s director, said in a statement. “Middle East developments are unlikely to meaningfully boost sentiment until supply disruptions have been fully resolved and energy prices fall,” Hsu added. US retail sales in March, the most recent data available, increased 1.7% month over month to $752.1 billion, according to the US Census Bureau, driven mainly by soaring gasoline prices, which do not contribute to retail merchandise imports. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b0bc7107-6699-4b28-9759-684b190b845a"></dynamic-object></div>Container lines on the eastbound trans-Pacific are nevertheless deploying or planning to deploy progressively more capacity in May through July than they did a year ago. According to ocean freight visibility provider eeSea, carriers are deploying almost 2 million TEUs in May, 2.13 million TEUs in June and just under 2.2 million TEUs in July. That’s up from 1.6 million TEUs, 1.98 million TEUs, and 2 million TEUs, respectively, in May–July 2025. Carriers are also blanking less capacity, according to eeSea: 207,797 TEUs in May, 117,403 TEUs in June, and 50,969 TEUs in July. That compares with 472,948 TEUs, 249,745 TEUs, and 239,573 TEUs, respectively, in the same period last year. The GPT forecasts imports at 13 US ports: Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Seattle, Tacoma, New York/New Jersey, Virginia, Charleston, Savannah, Port Everglades, Miami, Jacksonville and Houston. Contact Kevin Saville at <a href="mailto:kevin.saville2@spglobal.com">kevin.saville2@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

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

Trans-Pacific

Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes

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

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

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

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

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

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

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Subscribe Today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

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

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

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

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says. </div>

But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key first-quarter financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2025. <h3>‘Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 </h3>Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs,” he said. “The increased costs that will flow through the [profit and loss] in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. “This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6% but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. <h3>Overcapacity hangs over industry </h3>Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="65404dbe-8b60-43eb-9f13-4179bde44e2b"></dynamic-object></div>Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. “Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route [around southern Africa].” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key first-quarter financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2025. ‘Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs,” he said. “The increased costs that will flow through the [profit and loss] in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. “This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6% but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. Overcapacity hangs over industry Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. “Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route [around southern Africa].” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Maersk passing $500 million monthly fuel bill to customers ‘in full’: CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">FMCSA set a May 14 deadline for carriers and brokers to update their registration information before switching to “Motus,” a system that includes ID verification tools. </div>

FMCSA set a May 14 deadline for carriers and brokers to update their registration information before switching to “Motus,” a system that includes ID verification tools.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Department of Transportation (DOT) is nearly ready to throw the switch on “Motus,” <a href="https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/important-steps-you-must-take-prepare-fmcsas-new-registration-system">a new registration system</a> for trucking companies and freight brokers and forwarders. The DOT is encouraging hundreds of thousands of registered companies to go online and update their information by May 14, when the existing system will “go dark.” “We are modernizing the system and replacing decades-old systems, multiple systems,” Ken Riddle, director of the Office of Registration for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), told the Journal of Commerce Friday. That includes the Unified Registration System (URS) introduced in 2015 for new motor carrier registrants. For the first time, the new registration system introduces identity verification methods for individuals and businesses aimed at preventing fraud and weeding out “chameleon” carriers that shut down and reopen under new names to avoid penalties and continue operations. Motus will apply to all existing registrants as well as new companies. “We’re asking existing companies to go into their <a href="https://portal.fmcsa.dot.gov/login">FMCSA Portal account</a>, make sure it’s active and update their information,” Riddle said. Going forward, only the company official specifically identified with the account will be able to access the system, and he or she will have to verify their identity, Riddle said. Motus also will replace the FMCSA Portal. <h3>Helping prevent fraud </h3>The FMCSA began implementing Motus in December, making the system available to companies such as process agents and insurers representing motor carriers. The May 14 transition begins “Phase II” of Motus implementation, Riddle said. For companies that miss the deadline, “I’m concerned they’ll have to wait in a long line,” he said. Motus will not only help FMCSA clean up its registration rolls but willalso make it harder for fraudulent companies to operate. The agency contracted with technology-based secure transaction and identity verification firms IDEMIA and CLEAR to verify both personal and business identities of existing and new registrations accessing Motus. “IDEMIA is the same company that verifies IDs at all our airports,” Riddle said. “During the verification process, you’ll scan a QR code that will send you to their ID process — that’s step one. Step two is business verification with CLEAR, which will look at company names, EIN [employer identification numbers], and addresses to ensure they match. “When you go through all that, you will get verification codes you must enter to get into the system, so there are a number of steps that will help us reduce fraud,” he added. “I won’t go so far as to say it will prevent fraud, but it will help.” Riddle said he expects the new system to be online early in the week of May 18. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Department of Transportation (DOT) is nearly ready to throw the switch on “Motus,” a new registration system for trucking companies and freight brokers and forwarders. The DOT is encouraging hundreds of thousands of registered companies to go online and update their information by May 14, when the existing system will “go dark.” “We are modernizing the system and replacing decades-old systems, multiple systems,” Ken Riddle, director of the Office of Registration for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), told the Journal of Commerce Friday. That includes the Unified Registration System (URS) introduced in 2015 for new motor carrier registrants. For the first time, the new registration system introduces identity verification methods for individuals and businesses aimed at preventing fraud and weeding out “chameleon” carriers that shut down and reopen under new names to avoid penalties and continue operations. Motus will apply to all existing registrants as well as new companies. “We’re asking existing companies to go into their FMCSA Portal account , make sure it’s active and update their information,” Riddle said. Going forward, only the company official specifically identified with the account will be able to access the system, and he or she will have to verify their identity, Riddle said. Motus also will replace the FMCSA Portal. Helping prevent fraud The FMCSA began implementing Motus in December, making the system available to companies such as process agents and insurers representing motor carriers. The May 14 transition begins “Phase II” of Motus implementation, Riddle said. For companies that miss the deadline, “I’m concerned they’ll have to wait in a long line,” he said. Motus will not only help FMCSA clean up its registration rolls but willalso make it harder for fraudulent companies to operate. The agency contracted with technology-based secure transaction and identity verification firms IDEMIA and CLEAR to verify both personal and business identities of existing and new registrations accessing Motus. “IDEMIA is the same company that verifies IDs at all our airports,” Riddle said. “During the verification process, you’ll scan a QR code that will send you to their ID process — that’s step one. Step two is business verification with CLEAR, which will look at company names, EIN [employer identification numbers], and addresses to ensure they match. “When you go through all that, you will get verification codes you must enter to get into the system, so there are a number of steps that will help us reduce fraud,” he added. “I won’t go so far as to say it will prevent fraud, but it will help.” Riddle said he expects the new system to be online early in the week of May 18. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

FMC searching for new members to serve on shipper advisory board

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

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

Weak consumer confidence, rising inflation dim peak season hopes

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

Recent Commentary

A shipper’s decision framework for Amazon Supply Chain Services

Oregon’s strategy for logistics projects: ‘wing it’ and hope

Top 5 Most Read Stories