TPM26-640x340 Registration Open.png

Event Pop Up

Events

Maritime

Surface

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

Special Reports

Press Releases

Air Cargo

Supply chain

Resources

Gateway

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Media Kit

Other

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

International rail

Intermodal providers

Commentary

Podcasts

Webcasts

Videos

Annual Review and Outlook

Top Rankings

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Platts Containers Update

Top 100 US Exporters

Top 100 US Importers

Top 25 LTL Trucking Companies

Top 25 North American Ports

Top 25 Truckload Companies

Top 40 Container Carriers

Top 50 3PLs

Top 50 Global Container Ports

Top 50 Global Transportation Providers

Top 50 Trucking Companies

Editorial Calendar

Rail Directories

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Ports say they stand to lose about $1 billion in funding for maintenance work because the US Army Corps of Engineers’ budget is not treating so-called donor ports equally. </div>

Ports say they stand to lose about $1 billion in funding for maintenance work because the US Army Corps of Engineers’ budget is not treating so-called donor ports equally.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US port officials say they could be shortchanged about $1 billion for dredging and maintenance projects because the current budget for the US Army Corps of Engineers does not follow through on a 2020 law aimed at more equal distribution of the fees importers pay for maintaining US harbors.In a letter sent Thursday to a joint Congressional committee on energy and water, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), along with the directors of 22 ports, said the Corps fiscal year 2025 budget allocation for dredging and other maintenance does not adhere to a provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020).That provision allocated 10% of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to “donor ports.” Due to their size, donor ports have contributed over 50% of the monies to the HMTF, funded through a 0.125% fee on goods movements, but receive less than 2% of that back for maintenance projects, the AAPA said. “Ports need consistent and predictable funding to plan and execute the billions in additional expanded use projects in their pipelines,” the group said.The AAPA said the specified allocation to donor ports resulted in $332 million of extra funding for dredging and maintenance during fiscal year 2024. Donor ports expected to receive a similar amount in the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2025 work plan, which totals $5.5 billion, but it was not included. The AAPA said that maintenance projects begun in 2024 may stall due to the lack of funding in the 2025 budget. Ports share the cost of dredging and maintenance with the Army Corps, so they will have to make up any difference.With the fiscal year 2026 appropriations for the Army Corps now being drawn up, the concern is that it will also not include the required funding for donor ports. The AAPA said it wants Congress to expressly set aside about $480 million in the next appropriations process for the Army Corps to ensure donor ports get their fair share. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US port officials say they could be shortchanged about $1 billion for dredging and maintenance projects because the current budget for the US Army Corps of Engineers does not follow through on a 2020 law aimed at more equal distribution of the fees importers pay for maintaining US harbors. In a letter sent Thursday to a joint Congressional committee on energy and water, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), along with the directors of 22 ports, said the Corps fiscal year 2025 budget allocation for dredging and other maintenance does not adhere to a provision of the Water Resources Development Act of 2020 (WRDA 2020). That provision allocated 10% of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (HMTF) to “donor ports.” Due to their size, donor ports have contributed over 50% of the monies to the HMTF, funded through a 0.125% fee on goods movements, but receive less than 2% of that back for maintenance projects, the AAPA said. “Ports need consistent and predictable funding to plan and execute the billions in additional expanded use projects in their pipelines,” the group said. The AAPA said the specified allocation to donor ports resulted in $332 million of extra funding for dredging and maintenance during fiscal year 2024. Donor ports expected to receive a similar amount in the Army Corps’ fiscal year 2025 work plan, which totals $5.5 billion, but it was not included. The AAPA said that maintenance projects begun in 2024 may stall due to the lack of funding in the 2025 budget. Ports share the cost of dredging and maintenance with the Army Corps, so they will have to make up any difference. With the fiscal year 2026 appropriations for the Army Corps now being drawn up, the concern is that it will also not include the required funding for donor ports. The AAPA said it wants Congress to expressly set aside about $480 million in the next appropriations process for the Army Corps to ensure donor ports get their fair share. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Big US ports ask Congress to follow law for equal funding of dredging work

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The sanctions list targets the shipping interests of Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Ali Shamkhani, a political adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.</div>

The sanctions list targets the shipping interests of Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Ali Shamkhani, a political adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

<div class="phx-topic">Singapore-based ocean carrier SeaLead is terminating the charters of 16 vessels after the US Department of the Treasury sanctioned the fast-growth container line for links to the Iranian government. A slew of fresh sanctions on 115 Iran-linked individuals and their business interests was unveiled by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) this week, impacting 22 container ships. Sixteen of those 22 sanctioned vessels were chartered by SeaLead. According to Alphaliner, SeaLead is the 13th-largest liner operator in the world. The charter terminations will effectively reduce the carrier’s fleet by one-third, removing 16 of the liner’s 53 ships. Of those 53 ships, Alphaliner shows SeaLead owns two and charters the remaining 51. “The company maintains full compliance with applicable sanctions laws and regulatory requirements,” SeaLead said in a statement Thursday in which it confirmed the contract termination of the sanctioned vessels. The sanctions list, which OFAC said is its largest Iran-related sanction action since 2018, targets the shipping interests of Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Ali Shamkhani, a political adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “The Shamkhani family’s shipping empire highlights how the Iranian regime elites leverage their positions to accrue massive wealth and fund the regime’s dangerous behavior,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a statement from OFAC.  The 16 vessels include Ale, Bertie, Bigli, Hakuna Matata, Lidia, Moana, Pinocchio, Pumba, Rantanplan, Simba, Star, Tex, Timon, Yogi, Zagor and Ace, SeaLead told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Singapore-based ocean carrier SeaLead is terminating the charters of 16 vessels after the US Department of the Treasury sanctioned the fast-growth container line for links to the Iranian government. A slew of fresh sanctions on 115 Iran-linked individuals and their business interests was unveiled by the Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) this week, impacting 22 container ships. Sixteen of those 22 sanctioned vessels were chartered by SeaLead. According to Alphaliner, SeaLead is the 13th-largest liner operator in the world. The charter terminations will effectively reduce the carrier’s fleet by one-third, removing 16 of the liner’s 53 ships. Of those 53 ships, Alphaliner shows SeaLead owns two and charters the remaining 51. “The company maintains full compliance with applicable sanctions laws and regulatory requirements,” SeaLead said in a statement Thursday in which it confirmed the contract termination of the sanctioned vessels. The sanctions list, which OFAC said is its largest Iran-related sanction action since 2018, targets the shipping interests of Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani, son of Ali Shamkhani, a political adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. “The Shamkhani family’s shipping empire highlights how the Iranian regime elites leverage their positions to accrue massive wealth and fund the regime’s dangerous behavior,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said a statement from OFAC.  The 16 vessels include Ale, Bertie, Bigli, Hakuna Matata, Lidia, Moana, Pinocchio, Pumba, Rantanplan, Simba, Star, Tex, Timon, Yogi, Zagor and Ace, SeaLead told the Journal of Commerce. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

New US sanctions on Iran cut SeaLead’s vessel fleet by one-third

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The trans-Pacific carrier said China volumes were whipsawed by the Trump administration’s trade policy, with shippers likely to slow their ordering during the third quarter.</div>

The trans-Pacific carrier said China volumes were whipsawed by the Trump administration’s trade policy, with shippers likely to slow their ordering during the third quarter.

<div class="phx-topic">US-based ocean carrier Matson saw its trans-Pacific container business drop during the second quarter as volatile US tariff policy prompted customers to pause and then quickly resume shipments. The carrier expects volumes and rates to weaken through the rest of 2025, as shippers have frontloaded much of their seasonal freight. Matson said late Thursday that second-quarter container volumes on its expedited services from China fell 14.6% from a year earlier, with shippers whipsawed by the Trump administration’s implementation of so-called reciprocal tariffs. The Jones Act carrier said its customers negotiated with their Asian suppliers throughout April on an “order-by-order” basis on how to pay for the tariffs. Freight activity quickly resumed in mid-May after the White House issued a temporary reprieve on tariffs, Matson said, adding that higher freight rates for its premium services mitigated some of the effects of the volume decline. Matson’s ocean transportation revenue fell 2.1% during the quarter to $675.6 million, while operating income fell 9.5% year over year to $98.6 million. Matson’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-tariffs-cloud-trans-pacific-outlook-for-2025-matson-5999631">Vietnam services</a> benefited from the tariff volatility. It said container volumes from that country were up year over year as shippers sought to source goods outside of China. Matson has previously said freight from Vietnam makes up about 20% of its trans-Pacific business. Matson’s Jones Act business between US ports saw mixed results in the second quarter. The Hawaii business saw a modest 2.6% volume gain thanks to the state’s relatively stable economy and tourism, while its Alaska business was slightly higher due to ongoing economic growth driven by oil and gas development. But the carrier’s Guam services saw a 2.2% decrease due to more muted economic activity. Matson expects third-quarter volumes and rates will be lower than a year ago as customers decided to move second-half seasonal goods early to avoid further tariff volatility, which will result in a “muted peak season.” As a result, Matson said its third-quarter operating income in ocean transportation will be “meaningfully lower” than the $242.3 million posted a year ago. For the full year, Matson said operating income in ocean transportation will be “moderately lower” than 2024’s $551.3 million. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US-based ocean carrier Matson saw its trans-Pacific container business drop during the second quarter as volatile US tariff policy prompted customers to pause and then quickly resume shipments. The carrier expects volumes and rates to weaken through the rest of 2025, as shippers have frontloaded much of their seasonal freight. Matson said late Thursday that second-quarter container volumes on its expedited services from China fell 14.6% from a year earlier, with shippers whipsawed by the Trump administration’s implementation of so-called reciprocal tariffs. The Jones Act carrier said its customers negotiated with their Asian suppliers throughout April on an “order-by-order” basis on how to pay for the tariffs. Freight activity quickly resumed in mid-May after the White House issued a temporary reprieve on tariffs, Matson said, adding that higher freight rates for its premium services mitigated some of the effects of the volume decline. Matson’s ocean transportation revenue fell 2.1% during the quarter to $675.6 million, while operating income fell 9.5% year over year to $98.6 million. Matson’s Vietnam services benefited from the tariff volatility. It said container volumes from that country were up year over year as shippers sought to source goods outside of China. Matson has previously said freight from Vietnam makes up about 20% of its trans-Pacific business. Matson’s Jones Act business between US ports saw mixed results in the second quarter. The Hawaii business saw a modest 2.6% volume gain thanks to the state’s relatively stable economy and tourism, while its Alaska business was slightly higher due to ongoing economic growth driven by oil and gas development. But the carrier’s Guam services saw a 2.2% decrease due to more muted economic activity. Matson expects third-quarter volumes and rates will be lower than a year ago as customers decided to move second-half seasonal goods early to avoid further tariff volatility, which will result in a “muted peak season.” As a result, Matson said its third-quarter operating income in ocean transportation will be “meaningfully lower” than the $242.3 million posted a year ago. For the full year, Matson said operating income in ocean transportation will be “moderately lower” than 2024’s $551.3 million. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Matson expects dampened peak season after tariff-driven rush in Q2

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, which would further erode US port productivity.</div>

Marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, which would further erode US port productivity.

<div class="phx-topic">US ports and terminal operators <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ports-look-to-delay-proposed-us-tariffs-on-chinese-made-cranes-6007628">facing up to 270% tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes</a> they’ll receive from China in the coming months are considering reselling the units or laying them up in bond if they don’t receive exemptions from the Trump administration. The tariffs taking effect Oct. 14, absent relief of some kind, will make the total cost unfeasible for ports and terminals, tripling the price tag in some cases. While the industry lobbies the White House for an exemption, marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, said Carl Bentzel, president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6055442_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Such moves would interrupt normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. “Without relief or accommodation, these tariffs pose a serious risk of rendering critical investments economically unfeasible and will ultimately undermine the very policy objectives they are intended to advance,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston is proposing grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024. “This proposal would solve the Port Houston issue, along with similar issues Port Freeport, Port of Virginia and Ports America have with their STS cranes currently completing fabrication,” <a href="https://comments.ustr.gov/s/commentdetails?rid=HTCTBWHHBW">according to Port Houston Executive Director Charlie Jenkins</a>. But with that solution not guaranteed, alternative options being considered by ports and terminals include not putting the cranes to use. “If they must pay these tariffs, they will have three options,” Cary Davis, president of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), wrote in a May letter to US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamison Greer. “First, they can let the cranes collect dust while they are held in bonded warehouses at an additional cost. Second, they can attempt to slash budgets elsewhere to pay the tariff costs. Or third, ports planning future procurement can purchase used cranes instead, which are not as structurally or operationally sound.” <h3>Port productivity at risk </h3>The result of not upgrading or expanding ship-to-shore crane capacity would have several negative consequences, including lower port productivity driven by longer wait times for ships, delayed cargo availability and the inability to handle larger ships. That would further erode the competitiveness of US ports, which rank low in global port productivity rankings and are among the most expensive in the world on a per-container lifted basis. The main benefit of larger cranes is greater height, meaning US ports would face greater operational challenges handing larger ships without the upgrades. The Port of Virginia <a href="https://comments.ustr.gov/s/commentdetails?rid=73RDQKH6G2">told the USTR</a> it expects to be handling vessels in the 18,000 to 20,000-TEU range in the coming years, but that “without continued investment in greater port capacity, these larger ships are hampered from consistently calling the East Coast because the existing infrastructure, specifically ship-to-shore cranes, cannot support them.” Houston is a case in point in terms of the immediate challenges US ports are facing from the potential tariffs. The port is under contract with dominant Chinese crane manufacturer ZPMC for eight cranes at $14 million each scheduled for delivery in the spring of 2026. If it is forced to pay the full tariffs, it will owe $302.4 million in total, which would equate to more than half of the port’s annual container operating revenues and greater than a full year of operating cash flow, Jenkins wrote. The tax figure includes a proposed additional 100% tariff on China-made ship-to-shore cranes on top of 25% tariffs imposed in 2024 and the 145% in tariffs that still could be applied to all Chinese goods absent a broader settlement. For Ports America, the price tag for a single STS crane scheduled to arrive at Gulfport in early September is $16 million. “However, any scenario in which the total landed cost — including applicable penalties, tariffs and related charges — exceeds $22 million would render the equipment economically unviable for deployment,” Leech said. “In such a case, the only practical options would be to resell and re-export the crane or to store it in a bonded facility without commissioning it or paying duties.” <h3>Reshoring push from White House </h3>New legislation just introduced in the House of Representatives seeks to encourage the domestic <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congress-eyes-a-tax-credit-for-reshoring-port-crane-manufacturing-6053124">building of cranes to lessen the dependence on China-built equipment</a>, which makes up 80% of cranes at US ports and has raised security concerns. Although no solid plan to support US manufacturing or assembly of cranes has materialized as yet, affected ports appear to universally support the idea. The Canadian infrastructure investor Brookfield is discussing such an initiative in collaboration with Matsui-Paceco, Paceco being the builder of the original container cranes for Sea-Land Service Inc. in the 1960s. A White House meeting in April attended by several US port leaders included participation by Peter Stone, a leader of Brookfield’s US port business. At that meeting, according to one participant, the message from White House officials was: “We don’t understand why US industry is buying Chinese equipment and we don’t want you to. We want you to get on board with a program that creates availability of US-assembled cranes.” “There was no objection to this from the assembled ports assuming a transition agreement covering price, timing and specs,” the meeting participant told the Journal of Commerce. “Currently, there is ongoing engagement on developing a framework to nearshore and onshore STS crane manufacturing between the Trump administration, Congress and industry stakeholders. However, no agreement has been proposed as of yet.” If the threatened tariffs are implemented and remain in place, a prospect ports are taking seriously, it would stunt the planned expansion of US port capacity. According to an AAPA survey conducted with the US Maritime Administration, 165 cranes are either on order or will be ordered for delivery from China over the next 10 years, potentially being subjected to a prohibitive $6.7 billion in tariffs and penalties. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US ports and terminal operators facing up to 270% tariffs on ship-to-shore cranes they’ll receive from China in the coming months are considering reselling the units or laying them up in bond if they don’t receive exemptions from the Trump administration. The tariffs taking effect Oct. 14, absent relief of some kind, will make the total cost unfeasible for ports and terminals, tripling the price tag in some cases. While the industry lobbies the White House for an exemption, marine terminal operators may be forced to resell or even abandon cranes if the tariffs take effect, said Carl Bentzel, president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE). Such moves would interrupt normal US replenishment demand of 20 to 25 cranes per year on an installed base of an estimated 450 ship-to-shore (STS) cranes deployed at ports in the US and US territories. “Without relief or accommodation, these tariffs pose a serious risk of rendering critical investments economically unfeasible and will ultimately undermine the very policy objectives they are intended to advance,” Ports America CEO Matthew Leech told the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston is proposing grandfathering China-built ship-to-shore cranes that were under contract and in fabrication before Dec. 31, 2024. “This proposal would solve the Port Houston issue, along with similar issues Port Freeport, Port of Virginia and Ports America have with their STS cranes currently completing fabrication,” according to Port Houston Executive Director Charlie Jenkins . But with that solution not guaranteed, alternative options being considered by ports and terminals include not putting the cranes to use. “If they must pay these tariffs, they will have three options,” Cary Davis, president of the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), wrote in a May letter to US Trade Representative (USTR) Jamison Greer. “First, they can let the cranes collect dust while they are held in bonded warehouses at an additional cost. Second, they can attempt to slash budgets elsewhere to pay the tariff costs. Or third, ports planning future procurement can purchase used cranes instead, which are not as structurally or operationally sound.” Port productivity at risk The result of not upgrading or expanding ship-to-shore crane capacity would have several negative consequences, including lower port productivity driven by longer wait times for ships, delayed cargo availability and the inability to handle larger ships. That would further erode the competitiveness of US ports, which rank low in global port productivity rankings and are among the most expensive in the world on a per-container lifted basis. The main benefit of larger cranes is greater height, meaning US ports would face greater operational challenges handing larger ships without the upgrades. The Port of Virginia told the USTR it expects to be handling vessels in the 18,000 to 20,000-TEU range in the coming years, but that “without continued investment in greater port capacity, these larger ships are hampered from consistently calling the East Coast because the existing infrastructure, specifically ship-to-shore cranes, cannot support them.” Houston is a case in point in terms of the immediate challenges US ports are facing from the potential tariffs. The port is under contract with dominant Chinese crane manufacturer ZPMC for eight cranes at $14 million each scheduled for delivery in the spring of 2026. If it is forced to pay the full tariffs, it will owe $302.4 million in total, which would equate to more than half of the port’s annual container operating revenues and greater than a full year of operating cash flow, Jenkins wrote. The tax figure includes a proposed additional 100% tariff on China-made ship-to-shore cranes on top of 25% tariffs imposed in 2024 and the 145% in tariffs that still could be applied to all Chinese goods absent a broader settlement. For Ports America, the price tag for a single STS crane scheduled to arrive at Gulfport in early September is $16 million. “However, any scenario in which the total landed cost — including applicable penalties, tariffs and related charges — exceeds $22 million would render the equipment economically unviable for deployment,” Leech said. “In such a case, the only practical options would be to resell and re-export the crane or to store it in a bonded facility without commissioning it or paying duties.” Reshoring push from White House New legislation just introduced in the House of Representatives seeks to encourage the domestic building of cranes to lessen the dependence on China-built equipment , which makes up 80% of cranes at US ports and has raised security concerns. Although no solid plan to support US manufacturing or assembly of cranes has materialized as yet, affected ports appear to universally support the idea. The Canadian infrastructure investor Brookfield is discussing such an initiative in collaboration with Matsui-Paceco, Paceco being the builder of the original container cranes for Sea-Land Service Inc. in the 1960s. A White House meeting in April attended by several US port leaders included participation by Peter Stone, a leader of Brookfield’s US port business. At that meeting, according to one participant, the message from White House officials was: “We don’t understand why US industry is buying Chinese equipment and we don’t want you to. We want you to get on board with a program that creates availability of US-assembled cranes.” “There was no objection to this from the assembled ports assuming a transition agreement covering price, timing and specs,” the meeting participant told the Journal of Commerce. “Currently, there is ongoing engagement on developing a framework to nearshore and onshore STS crane manufacturing between the Trump administration, Congress and industry stakeholders. However, no agreement has been proposed as of yet.” If the threatened tariffs are implemented and remain in place, a prospect ports are taking seriously, it would stunt the planned expansion of US port capacity. According to an AAPA survey conducted with the US Maritime Administration, 165 cranes are either on order or will be ordered for delivery from China over the next 10 years, potentially being subjected to a prohibitive $6.7 billion in tariffs and penalties. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Looming US tariffs put economic viability of STS cranes in doubt

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Trade uncertainties are limiting visibility for the latter half of the carrier’s fiscal year, prompting it to significantly reduce its profit expectations.</div>

Trade uncertainties are limiting visibility for the latter half of the carrier’s fiscal year, prompting it to significantly reduce its profit expectations.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean Network Express (ONE) slashed its fiscal year 2025 profitability forecast by more than 36% Friday on expectations that the bearish fundamentals of falling demand and declining rates on the major trades out of Asia will be amplified by new vessel deliveries on the way. The Singapore-based carrier now expects its full fiscal-year 2025 net profit to be $700 million compared with the $1.1 billion forecast made earlier this year, it said in an earnings statement. ONE’s 2025 fiscal year began April 1 and ends March 31, 2026. “Recent trade uncertainties complicate visibility for the latter half of the fiscal year ... the current global environment remains highly uncertain,” the carrier said, adding that security risks in the Red Sea would keep pressure on the global supply chain. In its first quarter ending June 30, ONE reported revenue of $4 billion, down 4% year over year. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 49% to $616 million, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) dropped 94% to $38 million and net profit of $86 million was almost 90% lower compared with the same quarter last year. ONE reported flat volume on Asia-North America eastbound routes of 672,000 TEUs, with vessel utilization dropping from 100% to 94%. Asia-Europe volume was up 5% year over year at 456,000 TEUs, although utilization fell from 100% to 90%. While all of the earnings metrics were down year over year, comparisons with the fourth quarter of ONE’s 2024 fiscal year (January–March) show the impact of tariff uncertainty on the trans-Pacific. ONE reported volume slowing in April following the initial implementation of US tariffs, then surging in May after a 90-day pause on the levies was announced. Container handling on the Asia-North America eastbound trade in the fiscal first quarter increased 6% compared with the January–March period, ONE said in the statement. “This was due to a combination of several factors including fluctuating demand amid tariff uncertainties and an increase in capacity on the Asia-North America trade to cater to the strong demand from a 90-day tariff pause,” the carrier noted. Asia-Europe westbound volume increased 5% compared with the first three months of the year when demand was impacted by Chinese New Year. <h3>Capacity to outstrip demand </h3>ONE has 54 ships on order, contributing to the global container shipping order book that, at 9.1 million TEUs, is about 28% of the total in-service fleet, most of which will be delivered in the next two years, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just 9,000 TEUs in capacity will be scrapped this year. The growing supply-demand imbalance is being felt in the spot market. Rates on the Asia-US West Coast trade as of July 31 were at $1,713 per FEU, down 73% year over year; Asia-US East Coast rates were down 71% at $2,800/FEU, according to Platts, also part of S&amp;P Global. “The US is striking multiple trade deals, but this is unlikely to spark a cargo rush in the remainder of 2025 and prevent further softening of rates,” Emily Stausbøll, senior shipping analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said in a market update Thursday. “Carriers are trying to manage capacity, but they may be fighting a losing battle and have no choice but to accept lower freight rates,” she added. With trans-Pacific demand slowing, ocean carriers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/looming-august-tariff-deadline-prompts-carriers-to-pull-trans-pacific-capacity-6045526">plan to deploy less tonnage from Asia to the US</a> in August than in July, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. And ocean carriers are planning to blank less capacity this month than in July, although carriers warn that may change as container spot rates keep falling. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="5a0d1715-465b-4c14-aac5-b50642195578"></dynamic-object></div>China-North Europe rates on July 31 were down 60% year over year at $3,326/FEU, converging on China-Mediterranean rates that were down 55% to $3,293/FEU, according to Xeneta. As capacity outstrips demand, HSBC is expecting <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-face-three-year-decline-in-profitability-hsbc-6032235">a 45% year-over-year decline in profits</a> for the container shipping industry this year, raising the potential for a price war between carriers that the bank forecasts will lead to a 61% decline in profits in 2026 and a further 10% slide in 2027. Transportation analysts at HSBC indicated in a recent report that although carriers will remain profitable through the period, it will be nowhere near the three record years of 2021, 2022 and 2024. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean Network Express (ONE) slashed its fiscal year 2025 profitability forecast by more than 36% Friday on expectations that the bearish fundamentals of falling demand and declining rates on the major trades out of Asia will be amplified by new vessel deliveries on the way. The Singapore-based carrier now expects its full fiscal-year 2025 net profit to be $700 million compared with the $1.1 billion forecast made earlier this year, it said in an earnings statement. ONE’s 2025 fiscal year began April 1 and ends March 31, 2026. “Recent trade uncertainties complicate visibility for the latter half of the fiscal year ... the current global environment remains highly uncertain,” the carrier said, adding that security risks in the Red Sea would keep pressure on the global supply chain. In its first quarter ending June 30, ONE reported revenue of $4 billion, down 4% year over year. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 49% to $616 million, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) dropped 94% to $38 million and net profit of $86 million was almost 90% lower compared with the same quarter last year. ONE reported flat volume on Asia-North America eastbound routes of 672,000 TEUs, with vessel utilization dropping from 100% to 94%. Asia-Europe volume was up 5% year over year at 456,000 TEUs, although utilization fell from 100% to 90%. While all of the earnings metrics were down year over year, comparisons with the fourth quarter of ONE’s 2024 fiscal year (January–March) show the impact of tariff uncertainty on the trans-Pacific. ONE reported volume slowing in April following the initial implementation of US tariffs, then surging in May after a 90-day pause on the levies was announced. Container handling on the Asia-North America eastbound trade in the fiscal first quarter increased 6% compared with the January–March period, ONE said in the statement. “This was due to a combination of several factors including fluctuating demand amid tariff uncertainties and an increase in capacity on the Asia-North America trade to cater to the strong demand from a 90-day tariff pause,” the carrier noted. Asia-Europe westbound volume increased 5% compared with the first three months of the year when demand was impacted by Chinese New Year. Capacity to outstrip demand ONE has 54 ships on order, contributing to the global container shipping order book that, at 9.1 million TEUs, is about 28% of the total in-service fleet, most of which will be delivered in the next two years, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just 9,000 TEUs in capacity will be scrapped this year. The growing supply-demand imbalance is being felt in the spot market. Rates on the Asia-US West Coast trade as of July 31 were at $1,713 per FEU, down 73% year over year; Asia-US East Coast rates were down 71% at $2,800/FEU, according to Platts, also part of S&P Global. “The US is striking multiple trade deals, but this is unlikely to spark a cargo rush in the remainder of 2025 and prevent further softening of rates,” Emily Stausbøll, senior shipping analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said in a market update Thursday. “Carriers are trying to manage capacity, but they may be fighting a losing battle and have no choice but to accept lower freight rates,” she added. With trans-Pacific demand slowing, ocean carriers plan to deploy less tonnage from Asia to the US in August than in July, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. And ocean carriers are planning to blank less capacity this month than in July, although carriers warn that may change as container spot rates keep falling. China-North Europe rates on July 31 were down 60% year over year at $3,326/FEU, converging on China-Mediterranean rates that were down 55% to $3,293/FEU, according to Xeneta. As capacity outstrips demand, HSBC is expecting a 45% year-over-year decline in profits for the container shipping industry this year, raising the potential for a price war between carriers that the bank forecasts will lead to a 61% decline in profits in 2026 and a further 10% slide in 2027. Transportation analysts at HSBC indicated in a recent report that although carriers will remain profitable through the period, it will be nowhere near the three record years of 2021, 2022 and 2024. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

ONE cuts profit forecast as falling rates, excess capacity weigh on carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Company executives pointed to the rollout of the Trump administration’s tariff policy in April as driving disruption throughout the second quarter. </div>

Company executives pointed to the rollout of the Trump administration’s tariff policy in April as driving disruption throughout the second quarter.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean and air volumes in CH Robinson’s forwarding business fell in the second quarter amid market volatility caused by US tariff policy. The third-party logistics provider also warned of a slower second half of 2025 as much of the seasonal cargo has already landed in the US and shippers remain cautious in refilling inventories. CH Robinson said late Wednesday that gross profit in its ocean freight business fell 7.5% in the second quarter to $107.9 million, with volumes dropping 4% from a year earlier. Other segments of CH Robinson’s forwarding business grew during the quarter despite tepid volumes. The airfreight business grew 11.5% to $34 million on better pricing, even though volumes fell 12.5%. Gross profit in its customs business grew 31.7% to $26.7 million amid higher profit for each transaction. CH Robinson executives pointed to the rollout of the Trump administration’s tariff policy in April as driving volatility throughout the second quarter. CFO Damon Lee said during the company’s second-quarter conference call that April was the bottom in terms of volume “due to the tariff wars and the level of tariffs in the quarter that we started out with.” While May and June saw a rebound in volumes, “it wasn’t a significant rebound, certainly not enough to offset the pressure that we saw in April,” Lee said. <h3>Frontloading to mute Q3 volumes </h3>Chief Executive David Bozeman said on the call that while some shippers only moved what they needed for back-to-school and other seasonal goods, others decided to frontload as much as they could during the various tariff reprieves. As a result, the traditional third-quarter peak season will likely be muted, Bozeman added. “Although we’re approaching the traditional retail peak season for ocean, the industry may not see traditional peak volumes as some retail customers are working through inventories and being highly selective and strategic about bringing in only the essential products they must import,” he said. CH Robinson said volumes in its surface transportation business rose 1% thanks to growth in its less-than-truckload segment; gross profit for each truck shipment increased 2.5%. While the freight recession for the trucking market is ongoing, Michael Castagnetto, CH Robinson’s president of surface transportation, said load-to-truck ratios are higher, “reflecting an exit of capacity that has brought us closer to better balance in the market.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean and air volumes in CH Robinson’s forwarding business fell in the second quarter amid market volatility caused by US tariff policy. The third-party logistics provider also warned of a slower second half of 2025 as much of the seasonal cargo has already landed in the US and shippers remain cautious in refilling inventories. CH Robinson said late Wednesday that gross profit in its ocean freight business fell 7.5% in the second quarter to $107.9 million, with volumes dropping 4% from a year earlier. Other segments of CH Robinson’s forwarding business grew during the quarter despite tepid volumes. The airfreight business grew 11.5% to $34 million on better pricing, even though volumes fell 12.5%. Gross profit in its customs business grew 31.7% to $26.7 million amid higher profit for each transaction. CH Robinson executives pointed to the rollout of the Trump administration’s tariff policy in April as driving volatility throughout the second quarter. CFO Damon Lee said during the company’s second-quarter conference call that April was the bottom in terms of volume “due to the tariff wars and the level of tariffs in the quarter that we started out with.” While May and June saw a rebound in volumes, “it wasn’t a significant rebound, certainly not enough to offset the pressure that we saw in April,” Lee said. Frontloading to mute Q3 volumes Chief Executive David Bozeman said on the call that while some shippers only moved what they needed for back-to-school and other seasonal goods, others decided to frontload as much as they could during the various tariff reprieves. As a result, the traditional third-quarter peak season will likely be muted, Bozeman added. “Although we’re approaching the traditional retail peak season for ocean, the industry may not see traditional peak volumes as some retail customers are working through inventories and being highly selective and strategic about bringing in only the essential products they must import,” he said. CH Robinson said volumes in its surface transportation business rose 1% thanks to growth in its less-than-truckload segment; gross profit for each truck shipment increased 2.5%. While the freight recession for the trucking market is ongoing, Michael Castagnetto, CH Robinson’s president of surface transportation, said load-to-truck ratios are higher, “reflecting an exit of capacity that has brought us closer to better balance in the market.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

CH Robinson cautious on second-half outlook amid trade volatility

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

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

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

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

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Creating a transcontinental railroad is a test of whether North American freight can become globally competitive before it’s leapfrogged by digital platforms, foreign investment and shifting supply chains. </div>

Creating a transcontinental railroad is a test of whether North American freight can become globally competitive before it’s leapfrogged by digital platforms, foreign investment and shifting supply chains.

<div class="phx-topic">Over three decades in rail and logistics — from opening Canadian National Railway’s (CN’s) China offices to overseeing over $1 billion a year in rail and truck procurement at Maersk — I’ve seen our industry at its best and most frustrating. These experiences taught me that success in freight isn’t about owning more track, it’s about making what you have work together, predictably and seamlessly. Coordination and integration — not just scale — unlock value in modern freight. That’s why I believe creating a transcontinental railroad isn’t just corporate consolidation. It’s a test of whether North American freight can become globally competitive before it’s leapfrogged by digital platforms, foreign investment and shifting supply chains. We’re in a global race. The real question is whether we’re ready to evolve from a fragmented, legacy-bound system into a digitally enabled, customer-centric network. Modal conversion is hard. At CN, we worked to divert truck volume onto rail. But at Coyote and Maersk, I saw the reverse — when unreliable interchange, visibility gaps and inconsistent service pushed freight back to the highway. Modal shift doesn’t stick unless the product performs across every touchpoint: drayage, chassis, dwell, and data. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/potential-up-ns-tie-up-would-cause-major-shift-in-us-intermodal-market-6046025">A transcontinental merger</a> would give coast-to-coast reach on their own rails. That’s not just a coverage map — it’s a reimagining of how service is delivered. It could finally make rail more competitive against truck movements, but only if the combined company behaves more like a platform and less like a legacy carrier. That means unifying schedules, data, and service metrics. But let’s be clear — railroads don’t have a great track record here. Past mergers often promised integration but delivered disruption: slower transit, misaligned systems and customer confusion. If the potential tie-up between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern becomes another top-down rebrand without operational and digital harmony, we’ll squander a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Today’s shippers expect predictive insights, not just tracking pings. Modern tools are raising the bar by providing predictive truck-rail diversion intelligence and transforming frontline operations into structured, searchable data. These aren’t bolt-ons; they’re rewiring how decisions get made and how freight gets moved. Railroads must embed this kind of intelligence into their operating DNA. Visibility is no longer a feature — it’s the product. <h3>‘Align incentives’ </h3>I worked with the Chinese Ministry of Railways to consider a Chengdu to Narvik, Norway, route — ultimately connecting to Halifax. Three-gauge changes, uncertain infrastructure and limited partners made it unachievable. But today, weekly trains run from Asia to Europe. The difference? Capital, coordination and a unified commercial mindset. That’s the blueprint we need. North America has the backbone of rail — what it lacks is connective tissue. A transcontinental railroad would give one network end-to-end visibility and control. Think the kind of integrated vision Cornelius Vanderbilt dreamed of. In the Gilded Age, railroads shaped economies and connected cities. Today’s equivalent is data integration and seamless execution. We don’t need more steel — we need more reliability. For shippers, that means fewer surprises and a more resilient supply chain. Handled correctly, this potential merger could rebuild a product that earns modal conversion — but only if we align incentives across the ecosystem. Every player must show up. Shortlines need to get in the game by pushing for digital handshakes, carload connectivity, and shared metrics. Intermodal marketing companies can bring data and customers to the table and help shape lane strategies and expectations. Steamship lines port-to-door are your future. Make inland rail performance a C-suite issue. Bulk/merchandise shippers should demand parity: carload deserves the same precision as intermodal. Finally, logistics tech and third-party logistics providers must embed intelligence into the freight fabric, not around it. Handled poorly, this could become another merger that burdens operations and alienates customers. In a world of AI-driven dispatch and predictive ETAs, the window to rewire American freight is closing fast. Connecting teams, systems and expectations matters more than just connecting rail lines. Modernize now or risk handing the next decade of North American freight to faster, more agile competitors. Freight isn’t just a cost center — it’s a competitive edge. We either lead or step aside. That’s why I support a transcontinental rail system. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He can be reached at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

Over three decades in rail and logistics — from opening Canadian National Railway’s (CN’s) China offices to overseeing over $1 billion a year in rail and truck procurement at Maersk — I’ve seen our industry at its best and most frustrating. These experiences taught me that success in freight isn’t about owning more track, it’s about making what you have work together, predictably and seamlessly. Coordination and integration — not just scale — unlock value in modern freight. That’s why I believe creating a transcontinental railroad isn’t just corporate consolidation. It’s a test of whether North American freight can become globally competitive before it’s leapfrogged by digital platforms, foreign investment and shifting supply chains. We’re in a global race. The real question is whether we’re ready to evolve from a fragmented, legacy-bound system into a digitally enabled, customer-centric network. Modal conversion is hard. At CN, we worked to divert truck volume onto rail. But at Coyote and Maersk, I saw the reverse — when unreliable interchange, visibility gaps and inconsistent service pushed freight back to the highway. Modal shift doesn’t stick unless the product performs across every touchpoint: drayage, chassis, dwell, and data. A transcontinental merger would give coast-to-coast reach on their own rails. That’s not just a coverage map — it’s a reimagining of how service is delivered. It could finally make rail more competitive against truck movements, but only if the combined company behaves more like a platform and less like a legacy carrier. That means unifying schedules, data, and service metrics. But let’s be clear — railroads don’t have a great track record here. Past mergers often promised integration but delivered disruption: slower transit, misaligned systems and customer confusion. If the potential tie-up between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern becomes another top-down rebrand without operational and digital harmony, we’ll squander a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Today’s shippers expect predictive insights, not just tracking pings. Modern tools are raising the bar by providing predictive truck-rail diversion intelligence and transforming frontline operations into structured, searchable data. These aren’t bolt-ons; they’re rewiring how decisions get made and how freight gets moved. Railroads must embed this kind of intelligence into their operating DNA. Visibility is no longer a feature — it’s the product. ‘Align incentives’ I worked with the Chinese Ministry of Railways to consider a Chengdu to Narvik, Norway, route — ultimately connecting to Halifax. Three-gauge changes, uncertain infrastructure and limited partners made it unachievable. But today, weekly trains run from Asia to Europe. The difference? Capital, coordination and a unified commercial mindset. That’s the blueprint we need. North America has the backbone of rail — what it lacks is connective tissue. A transcontinental railroad would give one network end-to-end visibility and control. Think the kind of integrated vision Cornelius Vanderbilt dreamed of. In the Gilded Age, railroads shaped economies and connected cities. Today’s equivalent is data integration and seamless execution. We don’t need more steel — we need more reliability. For shippers, that means fewer surprises and a more resilient supply chain. Handled correctly, this potential merger could rebuild a product that earns modal conversion — but only if we align incentives across the ecosystem. Every player must show up. Shortlines need to get in the game by pushing for digital handshakes, carload connectivity, and shared metrics. Intermodal marketing companies can bring data and customers to the table and help shape lane strategies and expectations. Steamship lines port-to-door are your future. Make inland rail performance a C-suite issue. Bulk/merchandise shippers should demand parity: carload deserves the same precision as intermodal. Finally, logistics tech and third-party logistics providers must embed intelligence into the freight fabric, not around it. Handled poorly, this could become another merger that burdens operations and alienates customers. In a world of AI-driven dispatch and predictive ETAs, the window to rewire American freight is closing fast. Connecting teams, systems and expectations matters more than just connecting rail lines. Modernize now or risk handing the next decade of North American freight to faster, more agile competitors. Freight isn’t just a cost center — it’s a competitive edge. We either lead or step aside. That’s why I support a transcontinental rail system. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO), and Patriot Rail. He can be reached at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

Possible transcontinental rail a chance to ‘rewire’ US freight movements

 Actual capacity

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

Planned capacity

Blanked capacity

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

Mediterranean to US East and Gulf coasts container capacity (eeSea)

Mediterranean to US East and Gulf Coasts Container Capacity and Deployment (eeSea) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">DSV will start adding the first few country operations of DB Schenker into its network from Aug. 1 in an integration process expected to be completed by 2028.</div>

DSV will start adding the first few country operations of DB Schenker into its network from Aug. 1 in an integration process expected to be completed by 2028.

<div class="phx-topic">DB Schenker made its first appearance on the financial results of DSV since its $16.25 billion acquisition by the Danish forwarder <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dsv-embarks-on-mammoth-test-as-db-schenker-integration-begins-ceo-5994493">was finalized on May 1</a>, with CEO Jens Lund on Thursday hailing the positive start to the multi-year integration process. DSV will start adding the first few country operations of DB Schenker into its network from Aug. 1 and expects 50% of the integration to be completed by the end of 2026, 75% by the end of 2027 and full integration by 2028, Lund told analysts in a second-quarter earnings call. “I don’t think we could have hoped to be in a better position than where we are,” Lund said. “It means that the real integration in the business kicks off now and we can start to deliver on synergies as well.” The total costs of integrating Schenker will be as high as $1.6 billion by the time the process is completed, with this year’s integration costs expected to reach $380 million. DSV expects total synergies to be near $1.3 billion, with DB Schenker this year generating synergies of $76 million to $92 million. For a second quarter Lund described as both “extraordinary” and “unpredictable,” DSV reported revenue of $9.5 billion, down 1.1% year over year as integration costs and foreign exchange headwinds, mainly in the air and sea division, impacted the top line. Second-quarter gross profit of $2.6 billion was up 2.4%, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) fell 4.6% to $722 million and net profit was down 13% at $360 million. Gross profit in the air division was up 8.8% in the second quarter at $656 million, with overall volume up 46% year over year as Schenker contributed 168,000 tons of air freight to DSV’s 341,000 tons. In the sea division, second-quarter gross profit rose 9.5% to $641 million, boosted by Schenker’s contribution of $143 million, while volume improved 43% to 950,000 tons. Schenker business generated 271,000 TEUs in May and June. Road division business was heavily impacted by the weak automotive sector, with revenue of $3.1 billion down 4.1%, gross profit falling 7.5% to $650 million and EBIT plunging 29% to $80 million. While Schenker contributed positively to the division’s earnings, the performance was negatively affected by the overall low activity level and weak market conditions within some markets in Europe and the US. The contract logistics unit had a similarly dismal quarter as the low utilization of capacity and an increasing cost base related to new warehouses dragged down revenue and profit. Revenue was down 15% at $1.5 billion, gross profit fell 3.7% to $707 million and EBIT was down 41.6% at $110 million. DSV’s outlook for the full year remained unchanged, with EBIT forecast to be between $2.9 billion and $3.93 billion. “The current uncertainties related to trade tariffs, the geopolitical landscape, including the Red Sea situation, and macroeconomic factors, which all can impact the global trading environment and activity level, remain uncertain, and unforeseen changes may impact our financial expectations,” DSV said in its earnings statement. <h3>Little business overlap </h3>In an interview with the Journal of Commerce Thursday, DSV CFO Michael Ebbe said as the integration process moved forward, there was surprisingly little business overlap found between the two forwarders. “We had heard there were some customers on both sides but found that it was rather limited compared to what we initially expected,” Ebbe said. “There are only a few customers where there is truly an overlap, and we’ve not yet had any of those saying we have too large a share of wallet,” he added. “So that means that we can mitigate that risk quite easily.” Ebbe said that although there was not a loss of many customers during the acquisition process, there was significant “downtrading” in verticals such as consumer and automotive. “You can argue that we lose volume, but most of that is due to the market and how it has developed,” he said, noting that DB Schenker was far more exposed to the automotive market than DSV. “If we had BMW as a customer, we would not have lost it, but given that they sell fewer cars, they would be downtrading, and that has an impact,” Ebbe said. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

DB Schenker made its first appearance on the financial results of DSV since its $16.25 billion acquisition by the Danish forwarder was finalized on May 1 , with CEO Jens Lund on Thursday hailing the positive start to the multi-year integration process. DSV will start adding the first few country operations of DB Schenker into its network from Aug. 1 and expects 50% of the integration to be completed by the end of 2026, 75% by the end of 2027 and full integration by 2028, Lund told analysts in a second-quarter earnings call. “I don’t think we could have hoped to be in a better position than where we are,” Lund said. “It means that the real integration in the business kicks off now and we can start to deliver on synergies as well.” The total costs of integrating Schenker will be as high as $1.6 billion by the time the process is completed, with this year’s integration costs expected to reach $380 million. DSV expects total synergies to be near $1.3 billion, with DB Schenker this year generating synergies of $76 million to $92 million. For a second quarter Lund described as both “extraordinary” and “unpredictable,” DSV reported revenue of $9.5 billion, down 1.1% year over year as integration costs and foreign exchange headwinds, mainly in the air and sea division, impacted the top line. Second-quarter gross profit of $2.6 billion was up 2.4%, earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) fell 4.6% to $722 million and net profit was down 13% at $360 million. Gross profit in the air division was up 8.8% in the second quarter at $656 million, with overall volume up 46% year over year as Schenker contributed 168,000 tons of air freight to DSV’s 341,000 tons. In the sea division, second-quarter gross profit rose 9.5% to $641 million, boosted by Schenker’s contribution of $143 million, while volume improved 43% to 950,000 tons. Schenker business generated 271,000 TEUs in May and June. Road division business was heavily impacted by the weak automotive sector, with revenue of $3.1 billion down 4.1%, gross profit falling 7.5% to $650 million and EBIT plunging 29% to $80 million. While Schenker contributed positively to the division’s earnings, the performance was negatively affected by the overall low activity level and weak market conditions within some markets in Europe and the US. The contract logistics unit had a similarly dismal quarter as the low utilization of capacity and an increasing cost base related to new warehouses dragged down revenue and profit. Revenue was down 15% at $1.5 billion, gross profit fell 3.7% to $707 million and EBIT was down 41.6% at $110 million. DSV’s outlook for the full year remained unchanged, with EBIT forecast to be between $2.9 billion and $3.93 billion. “The current uncertainties related to trade tariffs, the geopolitical landscape, including the Red Sea situation, and macroeconomic factors, which all can impact the global trading environment and activity level, remain uncertain, and unforeseen changes may impact our financial expectations,” DSV said in its earnings statement. Little business overlap In an interview with the Journal of Commerce Thursday, DSV CFO Michael Ebbe said as the integration process moved forward, there was surprisingly little business overlap found between the two forwarders. “We had heard there were some customers on both sides but found that it was rather limited compared to what we initially expected,” Ebbe said. “There are only a few customers where there is truly an overlap, and we’ve not yet had any of those saying we have too large a share of wallet,” he added. “So that means that we can mitigate that risk quite easily.” Ebbe said that although there was not a loss of many customers during the acquisition process, there was significant “downtrading” in verticals such as consumer and automotive. “You can argue that we lose volume, but most of that is due to the market and how it has developed,” he said, noting that DB Schenker was far more exposed to the automotive market than DSV. “If we had BMW as a customer, we would not have lost it, but given that they sell fewer cars, they would be downtrading, and that has an impact,” Ebbe said. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

DB Schenker adds to DSV coffers as multi-year integration begins

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While not yet reflected in freight rates, analysts and forwarders report growing space constraints out of Southeast Asian origins. </div>

While not yet reflected in freight rates, analysts and forwarders report growing space constraints out of Southeast Asian origins.

<div class="phx-topic">European air freight importers are being indirectly affected by a tariff-driven shift in Asian trade flows that is putting capacity out of Southeast Asia under increasing pressure. While deployed air cargo capacity on routes from Southeast Asia to both Europe and the US remains flat this week compared with the average of the past four weeks, the shifting of volume from China to its southern neighbors is tightening available space, according to Jonathan Mellink, head of sales at air cargo analyst Rotate. “Shippers have shifted supply chains to cater for the differences in [US] tariff levies on different countries of origin, and we see these goods — computers, smartphones, auto parts — that were mostly coming out of China are being sourced in other locations,” Mellink told an air freight webinar hosted by Rhenus Logistics this week. For example, Mellink said 90% of all video game consoles were exported from China last year, but 50% of the products were now being sourced from Vietnam. Another example included Apple iPhones made in India, where significant volumes produced for the European market have been shifted to the US. While some electronics such as laptops, semiconductors and smartphones are excluded from the 10% US “reciprocal tariff” on Chinese imports, all imports of Chinese origin are subject to the 20% fentanyl tariff. “Shippers are trying to be agile and change their supply chains to benefit from at least some of the tariff differences out there,” Mellink said. Still, Chris Bode, vice president of global air freight at Rhenus Logistics, said exporters shifting thousands of tons of air freight from China to Southeast Asian manufacturing hubs such as Thailand and Vietnam risk overloading the outbound market. “[Thailand and Vietnam] are exporting roughly 40,000 tons a month on average, and when suddenly you have another 3,000 tons of a single commodity that was originally from China, it can affect global supply and demand,” Bode told the air freight webinar. “If a customer today is importing automotive-related cargo from Thailand into Germany, he will feel the impact of the US tariffs, even though he’s not involved directly with China-US trade,” he added. “It is important to understand how this new supply-demand is going to balance out and what its impact will be on customers that do not have direct trade flows with the US.” <h3>Keeping eggs ‘in the China basket’ </h3>The shifting of trade flows also poses a challenge to airlines, especially those deeply committed to the Chinese market, such as Abu Dhabi’s Etihad Airways. Leonard Rodrigues, director of revenue management and network planning at Etihad Cargo, told the webinar that the carrier in June signed a joint business agreement with Shenzhen-based SF Airlines, the largest cargo carrier in China. “It’s going to be very interesting to see what the impact of the tariffs and the trade volatility will be, because a big share of our eggs is in the China basket,” he told the air freight webinar, noting that Etihad in the past year has increased the number of weekly China flights from 11 to 18. However, Rodrigues said “making life easier” was the fact that Etihad Cargo had low exposure to the US, with only 3% of its freighter capacity deployed on Asia-US trade routes. Another factor insulating the carrier from the shifting trade flows was its size, as Etihad Cargo is a small player compared with the major air freight operators. Despite the shifting trade flows, Rodrigues pointed to the stability of air freight rates, with China-US rates this week close to levels seen during Chinese New Year in early February and China-North Europe up 10% over that time. China-North America rates were at $5.02 per kilogram this week while the China-Europe market was at $4.25/kg, according to the Baltic Air Index. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

European air freight importers are being indirectly affected by a tariff-driven shift in Asian trade flows that is putting capacity out of Southeast Asia under increasing pressure. While deployed air cargo capacity on routes from Southeast Asia to both Europe and the US remains flat this week compared with the average of the past four weeks, the shifting of volume from China to its southern neighbors is tightening available space, according to Jonathan Mellink, head of sales at air cargo analyst Rotate. “Shippers have shifted supply chains to cater for the differences in [US] tariff levies on different countries of origin, and we see these goods — computers, smartphones, auto parts — that were mostly coming out of China are being sourced in other locations,” Mellink told an air freight webinar hosted by Rhenus Logistics this week. For example, Mellink said 90% of all video game consoles were exported from China last year, but 50% of the products were now being sourced from Vietnam. Another example included Apple iPhones made in India, where significant volumes produced for the European market have been shifted to the US. While some electronics such as laptops, semiconductors and smartphones are excluded from the 10% US “reciprocal tariff” on Chinese imports, all imports of Chinese origin are subject to the 20% fentanyl tariff. “Shippers are trying to be agile and change their supply chains to benefit from at least some of the tariff differences out there,” Mellink said. Still, Chris Bode, vice president of global air freight at Rhenus Logistics, said exporters shifting thousands of tons of air freight from China to Southeast Asian manufacturing hubs such as Thailand and Vietnam risk overloading the outbound market. “[Thailand and Vietnam] are exporting roughly 40,000 tons a month on average, and when suddenly you have another 3,000 tons of a single commodity that was originally from China, it can affect global supply and demand,” Bode told the air freight webinar. “If a customer today is importing automotive-related cargo from Thailand into Germany, he will feel the impact of the US tariffs, even though he’s not involved directly with China-US trade,” he added. “It is important to understand how this new supply-demand is going to balance out and what its impact will be on customers that do not have direct trade flows with the US.” Keeping eggs ‘in the China basket’ The shifting of trade flows also poses a challenge to airlines, especially those deeply committed to the Chinese market, such as Abu Dhabi’s Etihad Airways. Leonard Rodrigues, director of revenue management and network planning at Etihad Cargo, told the webinar that the carrier in June signed a joint business agreement with Shenzhen-based SF Airlines, the largest cargo carrier in China. “It’s going to be very interesting to see what the impact of the tariffs and the trade volatility will be, because a big share of our eggs is in the China basket,” he told the air freight webinar, noting that Etihad in the past year has increased the number of weekly China flights from 11 to 18. However, Rodrigues said “making life easier” was the fact that Etihad Cargo had low exposure to the US, with only 3% of its freighter capacity deployed on Asia-US trade routes. Another factor insulating the carrier from the shifting trade flows was its size, as Etihad Cargo is a small player compared with the major air freight operators. Despite the shifting trade flows, Rodrigues pointed to the stability of air freight rates, with China-US rates this week close to levels seen during Chinese New Year in early February and China-North Europe up 10% over that time. China-North America rates were at $5.02 per kilogram this week while the China-Europe market was at $4.25/kg, according to the Baltic Air Index. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Tariff-linked trade flow shift tightens Asian air freight capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As tariff fatigue sets in, US retailers are concentrating more on their product delivery needs rather than adjusting their supply chains on the fly to the vagaries of the Trump administration’s trade policy.</div>

As tariff fatigue sets in, US retailers are concentrating more on their product delivery needs rather than adjusting their supply chains on the fly to the vagaries of the Trump administration’s trade policy.

<div class="phx-topic">The whiplash reality of the Trump administration’s tariff policy is no longer driving sharp swings in import volumes from Asia, but expectations of more blank sailings to curb the capacity overhang in the trans-Pacific could still jostle the weakening inbound trade. US retailers are giving less thought to the tariffs in terms of their ordering for the rest of the year, having gained at least some degree of clarity through the several trade deals that have been announced to date. Importantly, a growing number of retail logistics managers and importers, exhausted by the US’ ever-shifting trade policy, have given up on trying to beat moving tariff deadlines. “It doesn’t seem that tariffs and trade deals are quite the driving factor that they had been as recently as six to eight weeks ago,” Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of sales for North America at the forwarder MOL Consolidation Services, told the Journal of Commerce. “The import community has kind of decided, ‘It is what it is, and we can’t control it, but what we can control is just making sure our freight is on the shelf when we need it.’” Indeed, the prospects of a final rush of cargo tied to US trade policy announcements are fading, even if some forwarders and carriers hold out for a final pop in volumes in August. “Strategic planning and long-term decision-making based on tariff deadlines makes no sense because you just don’t know what those deadlines will be from week to week,” the logistics manager of a national furniture retailer told the Journal of Commerce. Ocean carriers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/looming-august-tariff-deadline-prompts-carriers-to-pull-trans-pacific-capacity-6045526">plan to deploy less tonnage</a> from Asia to the United States in August than in July, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. So far, ocean carriers are planning to blank less capacity next month than in July, although carriers warn that may change as container spot rates keep falling. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="88ff376b-3b44-447f-ae0f-22d6a0011592"></dynamic-object></div>Spot rates, a measure of how capacity matches up with demand, have been falling since late May and early June, according to various indexes. At a little more than $2,000 per FEU, spot rates from China to the US West Coast are down 70% from a year ago, according to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index. Some cargo owner customers are still uncertain whether the Aug. 1 deadline — in which the 10% blanket tariff on all US imports will revert to higher levels for countries that haven’t hashed out an agreement with the Trump administration — will hold, a carrier executive said. He added that while some tariff-related price increases have taken place, they haven’t blunted consumer demand enough to have a noticeable impact on import volumes. One automotive industry importer said that at the current 10% reciprocal tariff rate, his company can move product as the sector has absorbed that level. “However, we will not take product into the US at rates above 15% to 20% as some countries have negotiated,” he said. “We have completely pulled out of China due to tariffs.” <h3>GRIs unlikely to stick </h3>While carriers may attempt to impose general rate increases (GRIs) on the first and 15th of each month, forwarders and importers on the trans-Pacific <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pause-in-tariff-hikes-drives-big-gains-in-trans-pacific-spot-rates-6017111">do not expect any further rate hikes this peak season to stick.</a> “There’s no impetus to keep prices high,” Nothdurft said. “I don’t know what the carriers are banking on in August, but it doesn’t appear that those ships are full, either.” A steady stream of frontloading of fall and holiday merchandise has taken the wind out of carrier attempts to sustain price increases. “A lot of cargo for the rest of the year is already here in the US so there is no need for anyone to rush any huge amounts of cargo into the US for the next few months,” said Sanjay Tejwani, chief executive officer at the consulting firm 365 Logistics. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="a2606c91-b30c-4219-b617-9491b44b6af1"></dynamic-object></div>Even some carriers agree that the extensive frontloading that has already taken place in the eastbound trans-Pacific means cargo volumes may drop off dramatically in the fourth quarter. “I think it’s going to be a bad Q4,” a carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce. For importers, planning their supply chains while attempting to balance the cost of ocean transportation with the delivery of their product to store shelves on schedule requires the use of several forms of shipping. John Pace, senior manager of global logistics at Revelyst, a manufacturer of outdoor performance gear, said that for merchandise that was ordered months ago and is scheduled to be delivered this summer and fall, he can use the preferred mode of regular ocean shipping. As delivery deadlines approach for products with tighter deadlines, he will shift some shipments to expedited ocean service with guaranteed next-day container availability landside. Pace said he will use air freight as a last resort. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The whiplash reality of the Trump administration’s tariff policy is no longer driving sharp swings in import volumes from Asia, but expectations of more blank sailings to curb the capacity overhang in the trans-Pacific could still jostle the weakening inbound trade. US retailers are giving less thought to the tariffs in terms of their ordering for the rest of the year, having gained at least some degree of clarity through the several trade deals that have been announced to date. Importantly, a growing number of retail logistics managers and importers, exhausted by the US’ ever-shifting trade policy, have given up on trying to beat moving tariff deadlines. “It doesn’t seem that tariffs and trade deals are quite the driving factor that they had been as recently as six to eight weeks ago,” Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of sales for North America at the forwarder MOL Consolidation Services, told the Journal of Commerce. “The import community has kind of decided, ‘It is what it is, and we can’t control it, but what we can control is just making sure our freight is on the shelf when we need it.’” Indeed, the prospects of a final rush of cargo tied to US trade policy announcements are fading, even if some forwarders and carriers hold out for a final pop in volumes in August. “Strategic planning and long-term decision-making based on tariff deadlines makes no sense because you just don’t know what those deadlines will be from week to week,” the logistics manager of a national furniture retailer told the Journal of Commerce. Ocean carriers plan to deploy less tonnage from Asia to the United States in August than in July, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. So far, ocean carriers are planning to blank less capacity next month than in July, although carriers warn that may change as container spot rates keep falling. Spot rates, a measure of how capacity matches up with demand, have been falling since late May and early June, according to various indexes. At a little more than $2,000 per FEU, spot rates from China to the US West Coast are down 70% from a year ago, according to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index. Some cargo owner customers are still uncertain whether the Aug. 1 deadline — in which the 10% blanket tariff on all US imports will revert to higher levels for countries that haven’t hashed out an agreement with the Trump administration — will hold, a carrier executive said. He added that while some tariff-related price increases have taken place, they haven’t blunted consumer demand enough to have a noticeable impact on import volumes. One automotive industry importer said that at the current 10% reciprocal tariff rate, his company can move product as the sector has absorbed that level. “However, we will not take product into the US at rates above 15% to 20% as some countries have negotiated,” he said. “We have completely pulled out of China due to tariffs.” GRIs unlikely to stick While carriers may attempt to impose general rate increases (GRIs) on the first and 15th of each month, forwarders and importers on the trans-Pacific do not expect any further rate hikes this peak season to stick. “There’s no impetus to keep prices high,” Nothdurft said. “I don’t know what the carriers are banking on in August, but it doesn’t appear that those ships are full, either.” A steady stream of frontloading of fall and holiday merchandise has taken the wind out of carrier attempts to sustain price increases. “A lot of cargo for the rest of the year is already here in the US so there is no need for anyone to rush any huge amounts of cargo into the US for the next few months,” said Sanjay Tejwani, chief executive officer at the consulting firm 365 Logistics. Even some carriers agree that the extensive frontloading that has already taken place in the eastbound trans-Pacific means cargo volumes may drop off dramatically in the fourth quarter. “I think it’s going to be a bad Q4,” a carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce. For importers, planning their supply chains while attempting to balance the cost of ocean transportation with the delivery of their product to store shelves on schedule requires the use of several forms of shipping. John Pace, senior manager of global logistics at Revelyst, a manufacturer of outdoor performance gear, said that for merchandise that was ordered months ago and is scheduled to be delivered this summer and fall, he can use the preferred mode of regular ocean shipping. As delivery deadlines approach for products with tighter deadlines, he will shift some shipments to expedited ocean service with guaranteed next-day container availability landside. Pace said he will use air freight as a last resort. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

US tariff volatility no longer driving trans-Pacific trade plans

Use code TPM25GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STS20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

At SSA Marine Mexico, we firmly believe that business development must go hand in hand with social and environmental well-being. Our vision is not solely focused on operating efficiently, but also on creating a meaningful and positive impact in the communities where we are present. Since 1995, we have reaffirmed this commitment through tangible actions that reflect our core values of responsibility, solidarity, and sustainability. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584535914_Photo%201.jpg" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> A Year of Major Achievements Over the past year, we allocated more than $107,000 USD to the implementation of 60 social and environmental projects, positively impacting over 7,800 people across various regions of Mexico. Each initiative was designed with a holistic approach, addressing key areas that contribute to long-term community development. Education: Laying the Foundation for the Future Education is one of the most powerful tools to promote social mobility and equitable development. At SSA Marine Mexico, we support academic initiatives that inspire and empower the next generation of leaders. One of our most impactful partnerships was with the University of Colima, where we sponsored the “Reto Camp” program. This initiative encourages university students to develop innovative solutions in the fields of sustainability, logistics, and port operations, offering them mentorship, tools, and real-world challenges to solve. In addition, we donated microscopes, school supplies, and educational materials to institutions in underserved communities, helping to improve the learning environment and provide students with the resources they need to succeed. Health and Sports: Promoting Wellness We believe that healthy communities are strong communities. We have supported several local sporting events and provided direct assistance to talented athletes, enabling them to pursue their passions and represent their regions with pride. Beyond sports, we also strengthened our collaboration with critical emergency response organizations such as the Mexican Red Cross and Civil Protection. Our contributions helped enhance their readiness and capabilities in times of crisis, ensuring better outcomes for those affected by emergencies. Supporting Vulnerable Groups: Reaching Those Who Need It Most A core part of our social responsibility efforts is directed toward supporting vulnerable populations. We have contributed to a range of initiatives focused on children, migrants, and at-risk families. These efforts included donations to orphanages and shelters, as well as support for the National Institute of Migration and grassroots organizations dedicated to protecting and empowering people facing adversity. By standing with those in need, we reinforce our commitment to inclusion and social justice, values that are central to our identity as a responsible company. <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-3_2 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-medium" data-figure-size="medium" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="3:2"><img src="/content-assets/1752584944645_Photo%202.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">Culture: Strengthening Community Identity Cultural identity is a key element in building resilient and united communities. At SSA Marine Mexico, we actively participate in the organization and sponsorship of cultural events that celebrate local traditions and foster civic pride. Working alongside port authorities and municipal governments, we helped bring music, art, and heritage to the forefront, creating spaces for community engagement and intercultural dialogue. Environment: Investing in the Planet Our commitment to sustainability goes beyond operations—it’s a philosophy that drives every decision we make. We have partnered with environmental institutions to carry out reforestation campaigns, beach cleanups, and conservation efforts. In collaboration with the Institute for the Environment, we supported initiatives aimed at decarbonization, biodiversity protection, and environmental education. By involving our employees and local volunteers in these actions, we also foster a culture of environmental stewardship throughout our organization and our surrounding communities. Innovation for a Sustainable Future Sustainability is not just about doing good—it’s also about doing things better. In 2024, we invested $22 million USD in the acquisition of 11 state-of-the-art E-RTG cranes. These electric rubber-tired gantry cranes represent a significant technological advancement in port equipment. Seven of them are already operating on clean electric energy, resulting in a reduction of nearly 4,000 tons of CO₂ emissions and improving operational efficiency by 7%. The remaining four cranes are fully compatible with future electrification, underscoring our long-term strategy to modernize our operations in an environmentally responsible way. This investment is part of a broader innovation roadmap that includes digitalization, automation, and cleaner energy sources—all designed to ensure that our ports continue to grow without compromising the health of our planet. Building a Better Tomorrow, Together At SSA Marine Mexico, we understand that sustainability is a shared and ongoing responsibility. True impact requires collaboration across sectors, long-term vision, and unwavering commitment. That is why we continue to work hand-in-hand with local authorities, non-profit organizations, universities, and our own employees to create solutions that are both scalable and sustainable. Our journey is far from over. In the years ahead, we will continue to deepen our community engagement, explore cleaner technologies, and strengthen the social fabric of the regions where we operate. Each initiative, no matter the size, is a step toward building a future where business success goes hand-in-hand with human and environmental prosperity. We are proud of what we have achieved in 2024, but we are even more excited about what lies ahead. SSA Marine Mexico — Moving the World, Caring for People and Planet. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1752585040485_SSA%20Marine%20Mexico%20logo%20150pxW.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM25GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The company did not disclose the identity of the potential Chinese investor in the $23 billion deal, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings.</div>

The company did not disclose the identity of the potential Chinese investor in the $23 billion deal, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings.

<div class="phx-topic">CK Hutchison is in talks with a “major strategic investor from China” to join the BlackRock-Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) consortium in their planned $23 billion purchase of Hutchison’s non-China terminals, the Hong Kong conglomerate confirmed Monday. Hutchison, whose businesses include ports, telecoms, real estate and retail, did not provide details on the Chinese investor, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings. Cosco’s potential involvement follows speculation the Chinese government was pushing for a Chinese shipping group to join the BlackRock-TiL group as a condition of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/beijing-issues-warning-over-hutchisons-proposed-sale-of-panama-ports-company-5962910">Beijing giving regulatory approval to the deal</a>, announced in March. TiL is the terminals division of Gianluigi Aponte’s Mediterranean Shipping Co. The deal would also make MSC/TiL the world’s biggest terminal operator, with throughput volumes of more than 130 million TEUs, according to Drewry. Hutchison’s comments about Chinese involvement were made in a statement to the Hong Kong stock exchange following the weekend expiry of the 145-day exclusive negotiating period Hutchison had with BlackRock-TiL. Despite the end of the exclusivity period, Hutchison said it “remains in discussions with members of the consortium with a view to inviting a major strategic investor from [China] to join as a significant member of the consortium.” “Changes to the membership of the consortium and the structure of the transaction [will be needed for the deal] to be capable of being approved by all relevant authorities,” Hutchison added in the statement. It gave no deadline for the changes to be finalized. Instead, the company said it “intends to allow such time as is required for such discussions to achieve” the alterations. <h3>Balancing act to keep Trump administration happy </h3>There were to be two agreements under terms of the initial deal, one covering the sale of Hutchison’s Panama ports and the second involving the rest of its global ports network, excluding those in China. There is speculation the restructured deal will see BlackRock-TiL buying Hutchison Port Holdings’ 90% stake in the Panama Port Company, with BlackRock and its Global Investment Partners as the lead investor and no Chinese involvement. That would assuage Trump administration criticism that China influences cargo and ship movements through HPH’s ownership of Balboa and Cristobal ports at either end of the Panama Canal. The claims, made soon after Donald Trump became president in January, have been rejected by China. Instead, the Chinese investor would join BlackRock-TiL in the purchase of Hutchison’s 80% stake in HPH, which owns and operates 199 berths at terminals in 43 ports in 23 countries. The remaining 20% of HPH is owned by Singapore’s PSA International. Analysts say Chinese involvement, especially through Cosco Shipping Ports, could intensify regulatory scrutiny, particularly in Europe, where Hutchison, TiL/MSC and Cosco all operate terminals in Rotterdam and Antwerp. Eleanor Hadland, lead analyst for ports and terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/big-hutchison-deal-could-reshuffle-global-ports-network-drewry-5958162">previously told the Journal of Commerce</a> that TiL/MSC would likely have to sell off some terminals in Rotterdam, Le Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and Egypt as a condition of the deal being approved by competition watchdogs. If Cosco joins the consortium there could be added scrutiny from regulators in South Korea and the Middle East due to overlapping terminal interests by HPH and Cosco in Busan, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, one analyst told the Journal of Commerce. HPH, CK Hutchison, TiL, MSC and Cosco Shipping did not respond to the Journal of Commerce’s requests for comment Monday. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

CK Hutchison is in talks with a “major strategic investor from China” to join the BlackRock-Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) consortium in their planned $23 billion purchase of Hutchison’s non-China terminals, the Hong Kong conglomerate confirmed Monday. Hutchison, whose businesses include ports, telecoms, real estate and retail, did not provide details on the Chinese investor, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings. Cosco’s potential involvement follows speculation the Chinese government was pushing for a Chinese shipping group to join the BlackRock-TiL group as a condition of Beijing giving regulatory approval to the deal , announced in March. TiL is the terminals division of Gianluigi Aponte’s Mediterranean Shipping Co. The deal would also make MSC/TiL the world’s biggest terminal operator, with throughput volumes of more than 130 million TEUs, according to Drewry. Hutchison’s comments about Chinese involvement were made in a statement to the Hong Kong stock exchange following the weekend expiry of the 145-day exclusive negotiating period Hutchison had with BlackRock-TiL. Despite the end of the exclusivity period, Hutchison said it “remains in discussions with members of the consortium with a view to inviting a major strategic investor from [China] to join as a significant member of the consortium.” “Changes to the membership of the consortium and the structure of the transaction [will be needed for the deal] to be capable of being approved by all relevant authorities,” Hutchison added in the statement. It gave no deadline for the changes to be finalized. Instead, the company said it “intends to allow such time as is required for such discussions to achieve” the alterations. Balancing act to keep Trump administration happy There were to be two agreements under terms of the initial deal, one covering the sale of Hutchison’s Panama ports and the second involving the rest of its global ports network, excluding those in China. There is speculation the restructured deal will see BlackRock-TiL buying Hutchison Port Holdings’ 90% stake in the Panama Port Company, with BlackRock and its Global Investment Partners as the lead investor and no Chinese involvement. That would assuage Trump administration criticism that China influences cargo and ship movements through HPH’s ownership of Balboa and Cristobal ports at either end of the Panama Canal. The claims, made soon after Donald Trump became president in January, have been rejected by China. Instead, the Chinese investor would join BlackRock-TiL in the purchase of Hutchison’s 80% stake in HPH, which owns and operates 199 berths at terminals in 43 ports in 23 countries. The remaining 20% of HPH is owned by Singapore’s PSA International. Analysts say Chinese involvement, especially through Cosco Shipping Ports, could intensify regulatory scrutiny, particularly in Europe, where Hutchison, TiL/MSC and Cosco all operate terminals in Rotterdam and Antwerp. Eleanor Hadland, lead analyst for ports and terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, previously told the Journal of Commerce that TiL/MSC would likely have to sell off some terminals in Rotterdam, Le Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and Egypt as a condition of the deal being approved by competition watchdogs. If Cosco joins the consortium there could be added scrutiny from regulators in South Korea and the Middle East due to overlapping terminal interests by HPH and Cosco in Busan, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, one analyst told the Journal of Commerce. HPH, CK Hutchison, TiL, MSC and Cosco Shipping did not respond to the Journal of Commerce’s requests for comment Monday. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Hutchison confirms Chinese investor interest in BlackRock-TiL ports sale

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While the intermodal piece of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal could face some obstacles, UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise, writes Ted Prince.</div>

While the intermodal piece of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal could face some obstacles, UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">There is no doubt that the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-looks-to-create-first-coast-to-coast-railroad-with-85-billion-ns-deal-6052288">Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger announced Tuesday</a> is a possible inflection point in the rail industry. But there are major issues to resolve. The most obvious is the US Surface Transportation Board’s de facto moratorium on big rail mergers that has been in place since 2001, which was prompted by the intended merger of BNSF and Canadian National. There has been so much discussion on the moratorium point already <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-confirms-in-advanced-discussions-on-deal-with-norfolk-southern-6049046">in the lead-up</a> to Tuesday’s announcement that I will pass on adding to it. Rather, I will focus on topics that have not been addressed — or, in my opinion, have been misunderstood. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6052287_0.1.jpg"></img></div>There seems to be an assumption that the merged transcontinental railroad will be based on intermodal. There is some underlying validity to this. Rail intermodal’s competitive advantage increases with the length of haul, and there is a great deal of rail traffic currently moving over the two railroads. However, I am not sure how we magically arrive at the enhanced operational efficiency that is expected. There are already “steel-wheel” blocks that move intact between western and eastern railroads. <ul><li>In the domestic market, these are limited to major origins such as southern California to New York, Harrisburg, Pa., and New England. The reason there aren’t many more is because there is either a lack of daily critical mass, or the complexity of loading multiple blocks is avoided. These lanes are often only in one direction because the return lacks critical mass, frequently because empties are repositioned to an intermediate market for reloading. </li><li>The intact international market does not have the daily density threshold; however, it still has the challenge of sufficient scale and constraints on the number of blocks loaded on dock at origin. </li></ul>That is why so many point pairs are rehandled at network nodes. Chicago is predominant; however, Kansas City, Memphis, and Dallas also perform this unload-cross-town-reload function. One solution would be to de-market certain destinations (e.g., close Taylor, Allentown and Bethlehem to increase volume to Croxton and Harrisburg/Rutherford). This would generate scale, but pickup and delivery costs would increase. Intermodal routing is often about “closest to the pin” to minimize drayage. There is also a question as to whether these mega hubs would have the capacity to accommodate this new volume. To borrow an airline metaphor, it is unclear to me how the itinerary that involves a flight change today becomes a non-stop flight tomorrow. This issue is even greater for the “watershed volume” (e.g., Minneapolis to Pittsburgh) that has been out of intermodal’s reach for ages but is now expected to be converted from highway. There are ways to overcome these challenges, but they fall outside the boundaries of “the way we’ve always done it.” However, this might not be the obstacle it has always been. While UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have instilled core operating principles, they have also shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise. <h3>More deals to come? </h3>There are also commercial challenges. What happens to customers currently moving BNSF-NS or UP-CSX? Will they convert to the new UP-NS? And if so, how will that transpire? In some cases, this involves large volumes. Otherwise, this business will need to remain with the intermediate rehandling. Also, how much transcon volume is still left to convert? A great deal of the remaining volume involves cargo not conducive to intermodal, possibly due to multiple stops en route and restrictions on commodity and/or equipment type. The Burlington Northern merger with Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe in 1994 quickly led to UP and Southern Pacific in 1996. What will the fallout be now? Is BNSF-CSX a foregone conclusion, or might we see CN-CSX instead? Looking back at railroad merger history, it is not uncommon for a third railroad to force itself into a merger of two others. The New Haven achieved this in 1969 by forcing its way into Penn Central. Could we see one of the six Class I railroads pursue this strategy if it perceives itself to be a loser in this game of musical chairs? The possible combination of BNSF and JB Hunt has long been the industry’s equivalent of Elvis sightings. Could it now come true with BNSF avoiding an eastern rail partner in favor of merging with a virtual transcon? The possibilities are endless. It will certainly make for interesting discussions. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

There is no doubt that the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger announced Tuesday is a possible inflection point in the rail industry. But there are major issues to resolve. The most obvious is the US Surface Transportation Board’s de facto moratorium on big rail mergers that has been in place since 2001, which was prompted by the intended merger of BNSF and Canadian National. There has been so much discussion on the moratorium point already in the lead-up to Tuesday’s announcement that I will pass on adding to it. Rather, I will focus on topics that have not been addressed — or, in my opinion, have been misunderstood. There seems to be an assumption that the merged transcontinental railroad will be based on intermodal. There is some underlying validity to this. Rail intermodal’s competitive advantage increases with the length of haul, and there is a great deal of rail traffic currently moving over the two railroads. However, I am not sure how we magically arrive at the enhanced operational efficiency that is expected. There are already “steel-wheel” blocks that move intact between western and eastern railroads. In the domestic market, these are limited to major origins such as southern California to New York, Harrisburg, Pa., and New England. The reason there aren’t many more is because there is either a lack of daily critical mass, or the complexity of loading multiple blocks is avoided. These lanes are often only in one direction because the return lacks critical mass, frequently because empties are repositioned to an intermediate market for reloading. The intact international market does not have the daily density threshold; however, it still has the challenge of sufficient scale and constraints on the number of blocks loaded on dock at origin. That is why so many point pairs are rehandled at network nodes. Chicago is predominant; however, Kansas City, Memphis, and Dallas also perform this unload-cross-town-reload function. One solution would be to de-market certain destinations (e.g., close Taylor, Allentown and Bethlehem to increase volume to Croxton and Harrisburg/Rutherford). This would generate scale, but pickup and delivery costs would increase. Intermodal routing is often about “closest to the pin” to minimize drayage. There is also a question as to whether these mega hubs would have the capacity to accommodate this new volume. To borrow an airline metaphor, it is unclear to me how the itinerary that involves a flight change today becomes a non-stop flight tomorrow. This issue is even greater for the “watershed volume” (e.g., Minneapolis to Pittsburgh) that has been out of intermodal’s reach for ages but is now expected to be converted from highway. There are ways to overcome these challenges, but they fall outside the boundaries of “the way we’ve always done it.” However, this might not be the obstacle it has always been. While UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have instilled core operating principles, they have also shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise. More deals to come? There are also commercial challenges. What happens to customers currently moving BNSF-NS or UP-CSX? Will they convert to the new UP-NS? And if so, how will that transpire? In some cases, this involves large volumes. Otherwise, this business will need to remain with the intermediate rehandling. Also, how much transcon volume is still left to convert? A great deal of the remaining volume involves cargo not conducive to intermodal, possibly due to multiple stops en route and restrictions on commodity and/or equipment type. The Burlington Northern merger with Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe in 1994 quickly led to UP and Southern Pacific in 1996. What will the fallout be now? Is BNSF-CSX a foregone conclusion, or might we see CN-CSX instead? Looking back at railroad merger history, it is not uncommon for a third railroad to force itself into a merger of two others. The New Haven achieved this in 1969 by forcing its way into Penn Central. Could we see one of the six Class I railroads pursue this strategy if it perceives itself to be a loser in this game of musical chairs? The possible combination of BNSF and JB Hunt has long been the industry’s equivalent of Elvis sightings. Could it now come true with BNSF avoiding an eastern rail partner in favor of merging with a virtual transcon? The possibilities are endless. It will certainly make for interesting discussions. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Big US ports ask Congress to follow law for equal funding of dredging work

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

DB Schenker adds to DSV coffers as multi-year integration begins

Tariff-linked trade flow shift tightens Asian air freight capacity

US tariff volatility no longer driving trans-Pacific trade plans

Recent Commentary

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Possible transcontinental rail a chance to ‘rewire’ US freight movements

Top 5 Most Read Stories