<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">STG’s deal with a group of lenders who filed a lawsuit in New York last year clears the way for it to emerge from bankruptcy as the company has benefited from the rebound in intermodal demand.</div>

STG’s deal with a group of lenders who filed a lawsuit in New York last year clears the way for it to emerge from bankruptcy as the company has benefited from the rebound in intermodal demand.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">STG Logistics has cleared the last major obstacle to emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy next month after reaching a settlement with a group of minority lenders that had challenged its restructuring. The settlement removes the last serious challenge to STG’s reorganization and leaves the company positioned to exit bankruptcy with customers, and freight volumes, largely intact. STG, which provides transloading, drayage, and domestic intermodal services, has met all the financial commitments made when it filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection in January. Those included maintaining more than $50 million in cash and staying within budget targets for revenue and expenses over the past three months. The company increased volume year over year in the first quarter in Southern California, based on data from RailState, suggesting customers did not pull back business during the restructuring. The company is the fifth-largest US domestic intermodal provider, with 15,000 containers and about $720 million in annual revenue, according to an analysis of bankruptcy filings. STG also benefited from a broader rebound in intermodal demand as March was the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strong-march-volumes-give-intermodal-its-first-real-stress-test-in-years-6205604">third-strongest month on record for intermodal volume</a>, according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). The settlement ends a bitter fight that played out over the last two years. After expanding rapidly during the pandemic-related freight boom, including its 2022 purchase of XPO Logistics’ intermodal division, STG entered the freight downturn with too much debt. The company restructured its debt and shifted valuable assets backing older loans into a new entity beyond the reach of some existing lenders, according to Axos and Siemens, who filed a lawsuit in New York last year. In January, Axos and Siemens scored an important win when a New York court ruled that the claims against STG could move forward. Less than a week later, STG filed for bankruptcy in New Jersey, moving the fight into bankruptcy court. Axos and Siemens continued to object, but the settlement has now resolved that challenge. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

STG Logistics has cleared the last major obstacle to emerging from Chapter 11 bankruptcy next month after reaching a settlement with a group of minority lenders that had challenged its restructuring. The settlement removes the last serious challenge to STG’s reorganization and leaves the company positioned to exit bankruptcy with customers, and freight volumes, largely intact. STG, which provides transloading, drayage, and domestic intermodal services, has met all the financial commitments made when it filed for Ch. 11 bankruptcy protection in January. Those included maintaining more than $50 million in cash and staying within budget targets for revenue and expenses over the past three months. The company increased volume year over year in the first quarter in Southern California, based on data from RailState, suggesting customers did not pull back business during the restructuring. The company is the fifth-largest US domestic intermodal provider, with 15,000 containers and about $720 million in annual revenue, according to an analysis of bankruptcy filings. STG also benefited from a broader rebound in intermodal demand as March was the third-strongest month on record for intermodal volume , according to the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). The settlement ends a bitter fight that played out over the last two years. After expanding rapidly during the pandemic-related freight boom, including its 2022 purchase of XPO Logistics’ intermodal division, STG entered the freight downturn with too much debt. The company restructured its debt and shifted valuable assets backing older loans into a new entity beyond the reach of some existing lenders, according to Axos and Siemens, who filed a lawsuit in New York last year. In January, Axos and Siemens scored an important win when a New York court ruled that the claims against STG could move forward. Less than a week later, STG filed for bankruptcy in New Jersey, moving the fight into bankruptcy court. Axos and Siemens continued to object, but the settlement has now resolved that challenge. Terms of the agreement were not disclosed. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Drayage

Truckload

Intermodal providers

Surface

STG clears final obstacle to exit bankruptcy as lender dispute ends

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The truckload provider slashed its logistics division’s third-party carrier pool by 30% in the first quarter amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing. </div>

The truckload provider slashed its logistics division’s third-party carrier pool by 30% in the first quarter amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing.

<div class="phx-topic">Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings is making deep cuts in its brokerage carrier base, targeting businesses that company officials say may be unsafe. “We have cut down the number of carriers that we work with dramatically,” Adam Miller, CEO of the truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) provider, told Wall Street analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings call last week. “Just since the beginning of this year, we’re down 30% and we had made a large cut even earlier last year,” Miller said. The cuts at Knight-Swift come amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide, allegations of widespread illegal trucking and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-releases-interim-final-rule-on-non-domiciled-cdl-holders-6169023">a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing</a>. “We felt it was prudent for us to take the steps to eliminate capacity that we didn’t feel comfortable with,” Miller said. “And do I think others will do that? I think some will.” Knight-Swift, which reported $7.5 billion in total revenue last year, had $127.6 million in logistics revenue, largely brokerage-based business, in the first quarter. That revenue was down 9.9% from a year earlier, driven by an 18.9% decline in load counts. <h3>Growing pressure to tighten standards </h3>Brokerages and carriers such as Knight-Swift that operate brokerages as part of a transportation portfolio are under growing pressure to tighten standards used to vet carriers. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine what level of <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/02/court-to-consider-whether-freight-brokers-can-be-held-liable-for-negligent-hiring/">legal liability</a> brokerages bear when contracting with asset-based trucking firms. <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-dangerous-trucking-schemes-putting-americans-at-risk-60-minutes-transcript/">Recent media coverage</a> about illegal trucking and unsafe carriers has heightened public attention on how brokers vet the carriers they select to haul freight. “We have taken a great number of steps to really ensure that we have high-quality, safe carriers,” Miller said during the conference call. “We vet how long you've been in business. We're looking at evidence that you have logs that we could see where your tractors are.” A real challenge for brokers and shippers, he said, is identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck. “The broker has no idea, in most cases,” said Miller. “We are taking steps to ensure we have a copy of the license, [that] we know who’s in the truck, especially if they’re going to operate and leverage one of our trailers,” he added. In doing so, Knight-Swift is going well beyond basic legal requirements that a freight broker select trucking firms with active operating authority and motor carrier insurance. That’s a decision more brokers and carriers are going to face, said Miller, as a regulatory crackdown on truck driver licensing eliminates more capacity. “Some logistics companies may not have a choice because the capacity they’re leveraging today won’t exist,” he said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” Miller said. “We’re already seeing that.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings is making deep cuts in its brokerage carrier base, targeting businesses that company officials say may be unsafe. “We have cut down the number of carriers that we work with dramatically,” Adam Miller, CEO of the truckload and less-than-truckload (LTL) provider, told Wall Street analysts during the company’s first-quarter earnings call last week. “Just since the beginning of this year, we’re down 30% and we had made a large cut even earlier last year,” Miller said. The cuts at Knight-Swift come amid growing attention to truck safety nationwide, allegations of widespread illegal trucking and a federal crackdown on truck driver licensing . “We felt it was prudent for us to take the steps to eliminate capacity that we didn’t feel comfortable with,” Miller said. “And do I think others will do that? I think some will.” Knight-Swift, which reported $7.5 billion in total revenue last year, had $127.6 million in logistics revenue, largely brokerage-based business, in the first quarter. That revenue was down 9.9% from a year earlier, driven by an 18.9% decline in load counts. Growing pressure to tighten standards Brokerages and carriers such as Knight-Swift that operate brokerages as part of a transportation portfolio are under growing pressure to tighten standards used to vet carriers. The US Supreme Court is currently considering a case that could determine what level of legal liability brokerages bear when contracting with asset-based trucking firms. Recent media coverage about illegal trucking and unsafe carriers has heightened public attention on how brokers vet the carriers they select to haul freight. “We have taken a great number of steps to really ensure that we have high-quality, safe carriers,” Miller said during the conference call. “We vet how long you've been in business. We're looking at evidence that you have logs that we could see where your tractors are.” A real challenge for brokers and shippers, he said, is identifying and monitoring who is driving a brokered truck. “The broker has no idea, in most cases,” said Miller. “We are taking steps to ensure we have a copy of the license, [that] we know who’s in the truck, especially if they’re going to operate and leverage one of our trailers,” he added. In doing so, Knight-Swift is going well beyond basic legal requirements that a freight broker select trucking firms with active operating authority and motor carrier insurance. That’s a decision more brokers and carriers are going to face, said Miller, as a regulatory crackdown on truck driver licensing eliminates more capacity. “Some logistics companies may not have a choice because the capacity they’re leveraging today won’t exist,” he said. “We’re anticipating that our customers are going to start being more concerned about this as this becomes more of a relevant issue,” Miller said. “We’re already seeing that.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Truck brokers

Knight-Swift making safety-related cuts to brokerage fleet

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The near-term view for the industry is heavily dependent on how quickly the war in the Middle East is resolved, experts said at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026.</div>

The near-term view for the industry is heavily dependent on how quickly the war in the Middle East is resolved, experts said at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026.

<div class="phx-topic">The mix of industrial sectors that drive project cargo and breakbulk demand could well shift toward electrification and renewable energy in the coming years, but the industry is still driven by the oil and gas sectors despite fresh headwinds caused by the war in the Middle East. That sentiment, laid out in detail at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026 in New Orleans last week, cuts against the notion that service providers are totally consumed with data center construction. Tim Killen, head of growth at forwarder Fracht, said oil and gas still represents 25% of the planned capital expenditure investment for new projects globally over the next decade, compared with 8% to 10% for data centers, the sixth-highest project category. “We’ve had a lot of conversations over the last two days in terms of power generation and data centers,” Killen said at the conference. “But let’s recognize that both for North America and globally, oil and gas is critical. So we’re still focusing on that.” Among the sectors sandwiched between oil and gas and data centers that are driving new project capex are transformers, which Killen said has seen 300% growth in the last five years; infrastructure, such as bridges and water projects; and renewable energy, which accounts for 15% of capex for new projects. Cyril Varghese, global logistics director at Fluor, said the biggest issue clouding any outlook by project shippers, forwarders or carriers right now is not knowing how long the war in the Middle East will last. “What are the trickle effects going to be?” he said at Breakbulk26. “What is the trade reconfiguration going to look like? How much is protectionism and all countries trying to have a trade surplus or a balanced trade book impact your cargo movements across the globe?” Varghese said he is focused on what a prolonged conflict does to global GDP growth. “When you look at the [International Monetary Fund’s] World Economic Outlook, the recalibrated baseline for global growth is in the range of 3.1% for ’26 and 3.2% for ’27,” he said. “Now that’s in a baseline scenario, assuming that the conflict ends soon. A severe scenario takes the growth global growth rate to 2.5% and 2.2%.” Varghese’s contention is that carriers should be careful to not over-order breakbulk and multipurpose vessels with that uncertainty hanging over the industry, especially because new vessels entering the fleet tend to be able to carry more cargo than ones exiting the fleet. “If the overall [economic] growth slows down, and if there is more protectionism, which is coming, and if the industry just becomes sluggish, I think we would be prudent in terms of not going into an expansion spree,” he said. <h3>‘Flexibility crisis’ </h3>A more near-term issue is whether disruption to the supply of bunker fuel at key ports, especially in Asia, extends transit times and increases costs for projects. “On paper everything looks fine,” Melanie Drehkopf, chief commercial officer at dship Carriers, told the conference when asked about bunker availability. “In practice it’s getting tighter. There are longer lead times and you cannot just order bunker as you did before. The pricing validity window is shrinking, so if you have an offer, you better jump on it. Our flexibility is getting less and less, which means switching cargoes from one ship to another is harder.” Drehkopf said the industry doesn’t have a supply crisis yet, “but we have a flexibility crisis, especially in heavy-lift, where you don’t have regular ports.” Looking further out, she said if the war persists for another month and continues to curtail fuel supply through the Strait of Hormuz, lead times will get longer. “It’s all a big question mark,” Drehkopf said. “I don’t think it’s going to get better. I don’t think it will idle capacity, but maybe you need to wait two, three, or four days to get the bunkers you need. There are already bottlenecks of some commodities due to a mismatch of vessels and specific commodities.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The mix of industrial sectors that drive project cargo and breakbulk demand could well shift toward electrification and renewable energy in the coming years, but the industry is still driven by the oil and gas sectors despite fresh headwinds caused by the war in the Middle East. That sentiment, laid out in detail at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference 2026 in New Orleans last week, cuts against the notion that service providers are totally consumed with data center construction. Tim Killen, head of growth at forwarder Fracht, said oil and gas still represents 25% of the planned capital expenditure investment for new projects globally over the next decade, compared with 8% to 10% for data centers, the sixth-highest project category. “We’ve had a lot of conversations over the last two days in terms of power generation and data centers,” Killen said at the conference. “But let’s recognize that both for North America and globally, oil and gas is critical. So we’re still focusing on that.” Among the sectors sandwiched between oil and gas and data centers that are driving new project capex are transformers, which Killen said has seen 300% growth in the last five years; infrastructure, such as bridges and water projects; and renewable energy, which accounts for 15% of capex for new projects. Cyril Varghese, global logistics director at Fluor, said the biggest issue clouding any outlook by project shippers, forwarders or carriers right now is not knowing how long the war in the Middle East will last. “What are the trickle effects going to be?” he said at Breakbulk26. “What is the trade reconfiguration going to look like? How much is protectionism and all countries trying to have a trade surplus or a balanced trade book impact your cargo movements across the globe?” Varghese said he is focused on what a prolonged conflict does to global GDP growth. “When you look at the [International Monetary Fund’s] World Economic Outlook, the recalibrated baseline for global growth is in the range of 3.1% for ’26 and 3.2% for ’27,” he said. “Now that’s in a baseline scenario, assuming that the conflict ends soon. A severe scenario takes the growth global growth rate to 2.5% and 2.2%.” Varghese’s contention is that carriers should be careful to not over-order breakbulk and multipurpose vessels with that uncertainty hanging over the industry, especially because new vessels entering the fleet tend to be able to carry more cargo than ones exiting the fleet. “If the overall [economic] growth slows down, and if there is more protectionism, which is coming, and if the industry just becomes sluggish, I think we would be prudent in terms of not going into an expansion spree,” he said. ‘Flexibility crisis’ A more near-term issue is whether disruption to the supply of bunker fuel at key ports, especially in Asia, extends transit times and increases costs for projects. “On paper everything looks fine,” Melanie Drehkopf, chief commercial officer at dship Carriers, told the conference when asked about bunker availability. “In practice it’s getting tighter. There are longer lead times and you cannot just order bunker as you did before. The pricing validity window is shrinking, so if you have an offer, you better jump on it. Our flexibility is getting less and less, which means switching cargoes from one ship to another is harder.” Drehkopf said the industry doesn’t have a supply crisis yet, “but we have a flexibility crisis, especially in heavy-lift, where you don’t have regular ports.” Looking further out, she said if the war persists for another month and continues to curtail fuel supply through the Strait of Hormuz, lead times will get longer. “It’s all a big question mark,” Drehkopf said. “I don’t think it’s going to get better. I don’t think it will idle capacity, but maybe you need to wait two, three, or four days to get the bunkers you need. There are already bottlenecks of some commodities due to a mismatch of vessels and specific commodities.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Oil supply worries, economic uncertainty cloud outlook for breakbulk sector

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A penalty only works when it reaches the decision-maker with enough force to change the decision; the one coming into effect at the port on May 1 does not, writes Paul Tonsager.</div>

A penalty only works when it reaches the decision-maker with enough force to change the decision; the one coming into effect at the port on May 1 does not, writes Paul Tonsager.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of New York and New Jersey’s revised empty container fee takes effect May 1. The question worth asking is not how much to charge — it is who is being charged, and whether the charge ever reaches the party making the decision. On April 10, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ny-nj-updating-port-tariff-to-combat-rising-backlog-of-empty-boxes-6208652">a three-mile line of trucks was sent home from Port Newark Depot</a> because the 12-acre off-dock facility had run out of room for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd empties. APM Terminals contracted the depot in February 2025 to handle Gemini Cooperation empties and preserve on-terminal space for loaded moves. Drivers burned hours-of-service in a queue that backed onto public roads. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6210306_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The Port Authority’s response is a sharper version of the tool it has used since 2022. The revised tariff shortens the evaluation window from 12 months to six, extends scope to nearby depots, and retains the $100-per-container fee. The fee cannot solve the problem it is aimed at because the party paying it has already priced it in. Empty repositioning is a structural cost for ocean carriers, absorbed into rate structures and recovered in freight pricing. Spread across a 10,000-TEU vessel call, $100 per excess empty is a rounding error against voyage revenue. The carrier faces no vessel schedule or berth priority consequence beyond the invoice itself. The fee is a line item, not a lever. This is not the Port Authority’s first attempt. The 2011 Cargo Facility Charge, the only instrument of its kind at any US port, required eight years of carrier pressure and a 2019 restructuring that exempted empties. The Container Imbalance Fee has been revised multiple times since its 2022 introduction. Meanwhile, the operational cost lands downstream. Drayage operators absorb four- and five-hour queue times. Beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) pay detention on containers their truckers could not return because the return location was full. The solution to overflow has been more overflow capacity, which will fill on the same logic. The Port Authority has demonstrated a mechanism that does change behavior. The Clean Trucks Program phased out pre-1994 engine trucks from marine terminal access in January 2011 and restricted pre-2007 engines by January 2017. Trucks that did not meet the threshold were not fined; they were excluded. The drayage fleet turned over because the alternative to compliance was loss of terminal access, not a line item on a monthly invoice. The mechanism worked because it was tied to something the affected party valued and could not substitute away from. The equivalent instrument for ocean carriers would need to operate differently. A carrier cannot be excluded from the port the way a non-compliant truck can. What it can be held to is continuous, verifiable accountability for the asset it owns and directs. A chain of custody for empty containers would capture every handoff — carrier to terminal, terminal to drayage, drayage to BCO, drayage to return location — in a standardized event record held by a neutral registry. Each record would identify the custody party physically holding the box and the directing party issuing the disposition instruction. For empties, the directing party is almost always the ocean carrier. When that party’s instruction is unexecutable because the return location is full or the appointment unavailable, an accountability clock would run against the directing party until a usable instruction is issued. The mechanism places continuous economic consequence on the party making the decision. <h3>Revised tariff is ‘reasonable,’ but in the ‘wrong forum’ </h3>North American rail has operated a functionally equivalent system for over a century through car hire rules codified in the Association of American Railroads’ Circular OT-10 and settled through Railinc’s neutral clearinghouse, producing an asset management discipline that operates against a verifiable event record rather than through periodic fee revision. Most of the technical infrastructure for a maritime version already exists. Major ocean carriers including Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., and Ocean Network Express (ONE) have deployed or are deploying Internet of Things (IoT) container tracking at scale. Terminal operating systems capture gate events. UN/CEFACT and the Digital Container Shipping Association have published the data standards. What is missing is the neutral registry, the rulemaking that would require detention billing to be supported by chain-of-custody data, and the settlement layer. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has the authority to build all three under OSRA-22 and existing federal regulations on detention and demurrage invoices. None requires new legislation. The May 1 tariff revision is a reasonable administrative action by the Port Authority. It is also the wrong forum for the substantive fix. The port can tie terminal access to utilization performance the way it once tied it to emissions compliance. The FMC can build the chain-of-custody framework that puts the accountability clock on the carrier. A penalty only works when it reaches the decision-maker with enough force to change the decision. The current one does not. The accountability architecture that would make the next one unnecessary has not yet been built. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals &amp; Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>.</div>

The Port of New York and New Jersey’s revised empty container fee takes effect May 1. The question worth asking is not how much to charge — it is who is being charged, and whether the charge ever reaches the party making the decision. On April 10, a three-mile line of trucks was sent home from Port Newark Depot because the 12-acre off-dock facility had run out of room for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd empties. APM Terminals contracted the depot in February 2025 to handle Gemini Cooperation empties and preserve on-terminal space for loaded moves. Drivers burned hours-of-service in a queue that backed onto public roads. The Port Authority’s response is a sharper version of the tool it has used since 2022. The revised tariff shortens the evaluation window from 12 months to six, extends scope to nearby depots, and retains the $100-per-container fee. The fee cannot solve the problem it is aimed at because the party paying it has already priced it in. Empty repositioning is a structural cost for ocean carriers, absorbed into rate structures and recovered in freight pricing. Spread across a 10,000-TEU vessel call, $100 per excess empty is a rounding error against voyage revenue. The carrier faces no vessel schedule or berth priority consequence beyond the invoice itself. The fee is a line item, not a lever. This is not the Port Authority’s first attempt. The 2011 Cargo Facility Charge, the only instrument of its kind at any US port, required eight years of carrier pressure and a 2019 restructuring that exempted empties. The Container Imbalance Fee has been revised multiple times since its 2022 introduction. Meanwhile, the operational cost lands downstream. Drayage operators absorb four- and five-hour queue times. Beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) pay detention on containers their truckers could not return because the return location was full. The solution to overflow has been more overflow capacity, which will fill on the same logic. The Port Authority has demonstrated a mechanism that does change behavior. The Clean Trucks Program phased out pre-1994 engine trucks from marine terminal access in January 2011 and restricted pre-2007 engines by January 2017. Trucks that did not meet the threshold were not fined; they were excluded. The drayage fleet turned over because the alternative to compliance was loss of terminal access, not a line item on a monthly invoice. The mechanism worked because it was tied to something the affected party valued and could not substitute away from. The equivalent instrument for ocean carriers would need to operate differently. A carrier cannot be excluded from the port the way a non-compliant truck can. What it can be held to is continuous, verifiable accountability for the asset it owns and directs. A chain of custody for empty containers would capture every handoff — carrier to terminal, terminal to drayage, drayage to BCO, drayage to return location — in a standardized event record held by a neutral registry. Each record would identify the custody party physically holding the box and the directing party issuing the disposition instruction. For empties, the directing party is almost always the ocean carrier. When that party’s instruction is unexecutable because the return location is full or the appointment unavailable, an accountability clock would run against the directing party until a usable instruction is issued. The mechanism places continuous economic consequence on the party making the decision. Revised tariff is ‘reasonable,’ but in the ‘wrong forum’ North American rail has operated a functionally equivalent system for over a century through car hire rules codified in the Association of American Railroads’ Circular OT-10 and settled through Railinc’s neutral clearinghouse, producing an asset management discipline that operates against a verifiable event record rather than through periodic fee revision. Most of the technical infrastructure for a maritime version already exists. Major ocean carriers including Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., and Ocean Network Express (ONE) have deployed or are deploying Internet of Things (IoT) container tracking at scale. Terminal operating systems capture gate events. UN/CEFACT and the Digital Container Shipping Association have published the data standards. What is missing is the neutral registry, the rulemaking that would require detention billing to be supported by chain-of-custody data, and the settlement layer. The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has the authority to build all three under OSRA-22 and existing federal regulations on detention and demurrage invoices. None requires new legislation. The May 1 tariff revision is a reasonable administrative action by the Port Authority. It is also the wrong forum for the substantive fix. The port can tie terminal access to utilization performance the way it once tied it to emissions compliance. The FMC can build the chain-of-custody framework that puts the accountability clock on the carrier. A penalty only works when it reaches the decision-maker with enough force to change the decision. The current one does not. The accountability architecture that would make the next one unnecessary has not yet been built. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals & Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

Container lines

North American ports

Marine terminals

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Revised empty box fee at NY-NJ misses mark on accountability: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">New research from software vendor Altana found that some of the declining China-US trade flows last year morphed into complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico to qualify for USMCA treatment and thus avoid billions in tariffs. </div>

New research from software vendor Altana found that some of the declining China-US trade flows last year morphed into complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico to qualify for USMCA treatment and thus avoid billions in tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">Increased trade volumes from China to Mexico via intermediary Asian nations last year demonstrated a new path for US-bound goods that were able to avoid steep tariffs — an estimated $40 billion — on imports from China, according to a report from global trade software vendor Altana. The company, in a report released Thursday, said that shipment-level supply chain data from its platform, plus a survey of 91 US trade professionals that include former lawmakers and customs officials, found that some of the declining trade flows from China to the US in 2025 morphed into more complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico in order to qualify under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Altana’s report contends that activity is illegal under current US customs rules — and that the US has lost approximately $40 billion in tariff revenue from goods that passed through Mexico and Canada under the USMCA treaty without going through a substantial transformation. “As US tariff laws became more robust, the flow of global trade shifted, with China-to-US trade contracting and trade that involved intermediary channels that fed into the USMCA market all growing,” Altana said. While China-US direct trade from January through October 2025 fell 28% to $276.5 billion compared with the same period in 2024, trade from Vietnam to Mexico rose 46% to $18.1 billion, according to data from UN Comtrade, which tracks annual global trade flows. The data also showed that trade rose 19% from Thailand to Mexico in the same period, and by 13% from Malaysia to Mexico. Direct Mexico to US imports, meanwhile, rose 6% to $450.5 billion. The Altana report suggests that these trade spikes used existing transshipment pathways, meaning the tariffs didn’t immediately induce “new, capital-intensive supply chain relationships,” but rather rerouted goods “being pumped through established networks of suppliers, facilities and actors.” To wit, Altana said transactions observed in its network on those “pre-existing transshipment routes that end in the USMCA bloc” rose 76% year over year through the first 10 months of 2025. “The estimated dollar value of shipments demonstrating patterns consistent with illegal transshipment rose sharply throughout 2025, accelerating at each major tariff escalation,” the report said. <h3>Scrutinizing transshipment </h3>The Trump administration, in the wake of assessing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners throughout 2025, said US Customs and Border Protection would be scrutinizing the shipment of goods that utilized intermediate countries of origin with lower duty rates to evade higher tariffs on the actual countries of origin. In January and February 2025, Altana said it identified $2.2 billion per month of what it called “suspected transshipment-linked trade entering the US.” By December, that number had reached $31.5 billion. The Trump administration’s so-called liberation day tariffs were rolled out in early April. “The trajectory is telling,” the report said. “As tariff complexity increased throughout 2025, so did the non-compliant rerouting of goods that were subject to tariffs.” Ultimately, the alleged non-compliance activity is related to what trade professionals call transformation, the idea that goods stopping in intermediary markets undergo enough of a change to impact country or origin determination, thus allowing those goods to use preferential trade agreements. The Altana report identified vehicles, machinery and electronics as the three sectors most represented in these transshipment paths. “A Chinese-origin vehicle subject to a 152% duty can be rerouted through a Mexico facility and potentially enter the United States at USMCA preferential rates, if it qualifies under rules of origin,” the report said. “At question is whether meaningful transformation occurred at the Mexican stop, and whether these known transshipment facilities will accurately record regional value content and other, upstream component-level information necessary to calculate and apply complex tariff rates and origin rules.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Increased trade volumes from China to Mexico via intermediary Asian nations last year demonstrated a new path for US-bound goods that were able to avoid steep tariffs — an estimated $40 billion — on imports from China, according to a report from global trade software vendor Altana. The company, in a report released Thursday, said that shipment-level supply chain data from its platform, plus a survey of 91 US trade professionals that include former lawmakers and customs officials, found that some of the declining trade flows from China to the US in 2025 morphed into more complex, multi-leg supply chains routed through Mexico in order to qualify under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Altana’s report contends that activity is illegal under current US customs rules — and that the US has lost approximately $40 billion in tariff revenue from goods that passed through Mexico and Canada under the USMCA treaty without going through a substantial transformation. “As US tariff laws became more robust, the flow of global trade shifted, with China-to-US trade contracting and trade that involved intermediary channels that fed into the USMCA market all growing,” Altana said. While China-US direct trade from January through October 2025 fell 28% to $276.5 billion compared with the same period in 2024, trade from Vietnam to Mexico rose 46% to $18.1 billion, according to data from UN Comtrade, which tracks annual global trade flows. The data also showed that trade rose 19% from Thailand to Mexico in the same period, and by 13% from Malaysia to Mexico. Direct Mexico to US imports, meanwhile, rose 6% to $450.5 billion. The Altana report suggests that these trade spikes used existing transshipment pathways, meaning the tariffs didn’t immediately induce “new, capital-intensive supply chain relationships,” but rather rerouted goods “being pumped through established networks of suppliers, facilities and actors.” To wit, Altana said transactions observed in its network on those “pre-existing transshipment routes that end in the USMCA bloc” rose 76% year over year through the first 10 months of 2025. “The estimated dollar value of shipments demonstrating patterns consistent with illegal transshipment rose sharply throughout 2025, accelerating at each major tariff escalation,” the report said. Scrutinizing transshipment The Trump administration, in the wake of assessing tariffs on dozens of US trading partners throughout 2025, said US Customs and Border Protection would be scrutinizing the shipment of goods that utilized intermediate countries of origin with lower duty rates to evade higher tariffs on the actual countries of origin. In January and February 2025, Altana said it identified $2.2 billion per month of what it called “suspected transshipment-linked trade entering the US.” By December, that number had reached $31.5 billion. The Trump administration’s so-called liberation day tariffs were rolled out in early April. “The trajectory is telling,” the report said. “As tariff complexity increased throughout 2025, so did the non-compliant rerouting of goods that were subject to tariffs.” Ultimately, the alleged non-compliance activity is related to what trade professionals call transformation, the idea that goods stopping in intermediary markets undergo enough of a change to impact country or origin determination, thus allowing those goods to use preferential trade agreements. The Altana report identified vehicles, machinery and electronics as the three sectors most represented in these transshipment paths. “A Chinese-origin vehicle subject to a 152% duty can be rerouted through a Mexico facility and potentially enter the United States at USMCA preferential rates, if it qualifies under rules of origin,” the report said. “At question is whether meaningful transformation occurred at the Mexican stop, and whether these known transshipment facilities will accurately record regional value content and other, upstream component-level information necessary to calculate and apply complex tariff rates and origin rules.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Tariff escalation led to enforcement gaps in Mexico rerouted goods: report

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Iran conflict, which began late in the first quarter, had little impact on the forwarder’s first-quarter business, accounting for just a 1.5% decline in ocean freight volumes.</div>

The Iran conflict, which began late in the first quarter, had little impact on the forwarder’s first-quarter business, accounting for just a 1.5% decline in ocean freight volumes.

<div class="phx-topic">Kuehne + Nagel is redoubling its efforts to develop new ocean business, while also taking steps to protect its air freight operations in Asia to offset the impact of the war in the Middle East, company executives said Friday. Those steps include expanding K+N’s prepaid ocean freight logistics options in China and refueling aircraft in China to overcome potential jet fuel shortages in Southeast Asia, the forwarder’s CEO Stefan Paul said during a first-quarter results webinar. Paul said there are a lot of new China-based manufacturing and trading companies asking K+N for help in exporting products via ocean freight. The company recently increased its dedicated sales force in the Shenzhen area where a lot of those companies are located. “We are confident from what we have seen in the last couple of weeks in terms of business gains that we can offset [the Middle East disruption] with China prepaid additional volume coming in from new and existing customers...,” Paul said. On air freight, he explained that countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand don’t have buffer stocks of jet fuel beyond the end of May due to oil shortages caused by the Iran war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. But, “China has significantly more reserves [of jet fuel],” Paul said. Consequently, K+N’s Southeast Asia charter cargo flights are refueled in China before returning to the region, while longer-haul services are also making refueling stops in China, he added. Paul said he doesn’t see specific jet fuel shortages now, but the situation could worsen the longer Hormuz remains shut. K+N’s CEO also said the 16% to 18% drop in air freight capacity seen immediately after the Iran conflict started on Feb. 28 as flights were grounded due to airport closures and air space restrictions had eased to “single digits,” without specifying a figure. <h3>Q1 revenue, profit decline </h3>Paul was commenting after Kuehne + Nagel reported a 12% year-over-year decline in first-quarter net profit to $316 million, partly due to a 7% foreign exchange hit. Revenue also fell 12% to $7.1 billion. He said the outlook for the second quarter was “stable.” The Middle East conflict, which began late in the first quarter, had little impact on the forwarder’s first-quarter business, accounting for just a 1.5% decline in ocean freight volumes. That mostly accounted for the 2% year-over-year fall in overall volumes, to 1 million TEUs, seen in the first quarter. Revenue from sea logistics dropped 25% to $2.4 billion, while gross profit fell 22% to $572 million. The decline was mainly due to customers frontloading cargo last year ahead of the US’ broad implementation of tariffs in April 2025, Paul said. Air logistics volumes were flat at 516,000 metric tons as the forwarder was more selective in the cargo mix, targeting higher yield freight such as semiconductors, the CEO said. Revenue for the business was largely unchanged at $2 billion, while gross profit fell 7% to $518 million. K+N saw a more upbeat result from both its road and contract logistics divisions. Paul said the signs of a recovery in road logistics seen in the fourth quarter continued in the first quarter, buoyed by land bridge services in the Middle East amid the war. K+N CFO Markus Blanka-Graff said “market share gains” in the US and Europe in the last six weeks also supported the upbeat result in road logistics, with a 4% increase in revenues to $1.2 billion and a 2% gain in gross profit to $432 million. Revenue in the contract logistics division was flat at $1.5 billion, but gross profit rose 3% to $1.2 billion. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Kuehne + Nagel is redoubling its efforts to develop new ocean business, while also taking steps to protect its air freight operations in Asia to offset the impact of the war in the Middle East, company executives said Friday. Those steps include expanding K+N’s prepaid ocean freight logistics options in China and refueling aircraft in China to overcome potential jet fuel shortages in Southeast Asia, the forwarder’s CEO Stefan Paul said during a first-quarter results webinar. Paul said there are a lot of new China-based manufacturing and trading companies asking K+N for help in exporting products via ocean freight. The company recently increased its dedicated sales force in the Shenzhen area where a lot of those companies are located. “We are confident from what we have seen in the last couple of weeks in terms of business gains that we can offset [the Middle East disruption] with China prepaid additional volume coming in from new and existing customers...,” Paul said. On air freight, he explained that countries such as Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand don’t have buffer stocks of jet fuel beyond the end of May due to oil shortages caused by the Iran war and closure of the Strait of Hormuz. But, “China has significantly more reserves [of jet fuel],” Paul said. Consequently, K+N’s Southeast Asia charter cargo flights are refueled in China before returning to the region, while longer-haul services are also making refueling stops in China, he added. Paul said he doesn’t see specific jet fuel shortages now, but the situation could worsen the longer Hormuz remains shut. K+N’s CEO also said the 16% to 18% drop in air freight capacity seen immediately after the Iran conflict started on Feb. 28 as flights were grounded due to airport closures and air space restrictions had eased to “single digits,” without specifying a figure. Q1 revenue, profit decline Paul was commenting after Kuehne + Nagel reported a 12% year-over-year decline in first-quarter net profit to $316 million, partly due to a 7% foreign exchange hit. Revenue also fell 12% to $7.1 billion. He said the outlook for the second quarter was “stable.” The Middle East conflict, which began late in the first quarter, had little impact on the forwarder’s first-quarter business, accounting for just a 1.5% decline in ocean freight volumes. That mostly accounted for the 2% year-over-year fall in overall volumes, to 1 million TEUs, seen in the first quarter. Revenue from sea logistics dropped 25% to $2.4 billion, while gross profit fell 22% to $572 million. The decline was mainly due to customers frontloading cargo last year ahead of the US’ broad implementation of tariffs in April 2025, Paul said. Air logistics volumes were flat at 516,000 metric tons as the forwarder was more selective in the cargo mix, targeting higher yield freight such as semiconductors, the CEO said. Revenue for the business was largely unchanged at $2 billion, while gross profit fell 7% to $518 million. K+N saw a more upbeat result from both its road and contract logistics divisions. Paul said the signs of a recovery in road logistics seen in the fourth quarter continued in the first quarter, buoyed by land bridge services in the Middle East amid the war. K+N CFO Markus Blanka-Graff said “market share gains” in the US and Europe in the last six weeks also supported the upbeat result in road logistics, with a 4% increase in revenues to $1.2 billion and a 2% gain in gross profit to $432 million. Revenue in the contract logistics division was flat at $1.5 billion, but gross profit rose 3% to $1.2 billion. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Air Cargo

K+N develops new ocean markets, air freight measures to offset war impact

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">After more than two decades of inconsistent federal enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving, raising hopes for a safer trucking industry and the general public it serves. </div>

After more than two decades of inconsistent federal enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving, raising hopes for a safer trucking industry and the general public it serves.

<div class="phx-topic">I’ve watched the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) struggle to fulfill its most critical responsibility: ensuring safer roads. This is not a casual observation; it is a conclusion drawn from over 20 years of experience with the data, policies and the consequences that arise from them. The April 12 60 Minutes segment on trucking fraud is a direct consequence of the FMCSA’s failure to listen, engage, or understand the safety risks associated with the industry it is supposed to regulate. This is just one of many examples that underscores its shortcomings. In 2004, the FMCSA announced its flagship safety initiative, CSA 2010. The premise was straightforward: Use data to identify unsafe carriers and reduce crashes. It did not achieve its intended goals. And its failure was not quiet. It was public, repeated and consequential. More than two decades later, the industry still lacks a reliable, trusted framework to identify and avoid unsafe motor carriers. That outcome is extraordinary given the time, funding and regulatory focus dedicated to the effort. CSA is the most visible example, but not the only one. The program relied on data that could not reliably predict crash risk, yet it was promoted as though it could. Investigations by the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office confirmed that key elements were not statistically valid for their intended use, prompting Congressional intervention. This is not refinement, but systemic failure. More broadly, it reflects a pattern: initiatives launched with hope, but without a solid grounding in how safety actually operates in the real world. <h3>A disconnect from the real world </h3>As a member of the FMCSA’s Carrier Safety and Accountability Subcommittee, I saw firsthand how far decision-making had drifted from operational reality. Too often, the FMCSA treated the industry as an adversary rather than a partner. The people responsible for selecting carriers, managing risk and ensuring safe freight movement every day were not meaningfully included. At one point, I renamed my working folder for the CSA Subcommittee meetings to “FMCSA Lies.” This name reflected my frustration with senior-level FMCSA staff who defended positions that contradicted data, real-world situations, and basic common sense. They also seemed unwilling to listen to reason. Meanwhile, the private sector adapted. In 2007, I founded QualifiedCarriers.com to provide actionable safety intelligence to the shipping community on motor carriers. It was later acquired by Highway. The market built what it needed because the FMCSA would not. The problem has been compounded by a focus on issues with little direct impact on safety outcomes. Examining the economics of broker-carrier relationships — such as pricing structures — does not prevent accidents, remove unsafe drivers, or improve training and enforcement. Safety is operational. It comes down to who is behind the wheel, how they were trained, and whether standards are enforced consistently across jurisdictions. Anything else is a distraction. <h3>A turning point </h3>For the first time in 22 years, there are signs that the FMCSA is refocusing on what matters. Under Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs, the agency has begun taking steps that directly affect safety outcomes. In a short period, the FMCSA has shut down deficient commercial drivers’ license (CDL) schools, eliminating pipelines of underqualified drivers; actively enforced English language proficiency rules; begun cooperating with federal law enforcement on fraud, including risks tied to foreign-controlled dispatch operations; and started evaluating prior CDL issuances from substandard programs. The agency is also engaging directly with industry at major events, including the Mid-America Trucking Show and the Truckload Carriers Association annual meeting. At the Truckload Carriers Association meeting in March, Barrs received a standing ovation — not because enforcement is easier, but because it is finally becoming more meaningful. He may be the first FMCSA leader since Annette Sandberg to fully grasp that safety is an operational discipline grounded in qualification, enforcement and measurable outcomes. To the professionals inside the FMCSA: you now have leadership aligned with real-world safety. Support it, build on it and do not revert to frameworks that have already failed. To industry leaders — carriers, brokers, shippers and associations: engage constructively. Demand rigor, share data and hold the agency accountable while reinforcing what works. The path forward is not complicated. Put qualified drivers on the road, remove unqualified ones, enforce standards consistently, and use data that reflects reality. Do that, and safety improves. But we should be clear-eyed about the cost of delay. After more than two decades of inconsistent enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving all at once — tightening standards, removing capacity and straining the system. Had these steps been taken steadily over time, the disruption would be far less — and lives would almost certainly have been saved. For 22 years, the FMCSA drifted. Now it has a chance to lead and an obligation not to waste it again.Jeff Tucker is chairman of the National Industrial Transportation League’s Highway Committee. Contact him at <a href="mailto:jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com">jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com</a>. </div>

I’ve watched the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) struggle to fulfill its most critical responsibility: ensuring safer roads. This is not a casual observation; it is a conclusion drawn from over 20 years of experience with the data, policies and the consequences that arise from them. The April 12 60 Minutes segment on trucking fraud is a direct consequence of the FMCSA’s failure to listen, engage, or understand the safety risks associated with the industry it is supposed to regulate. This is just one of many examples that underscores its shortcomings. In 2004, the FMCSA announced its flagship safety initiative, CSA 2010. The premise was straightforward: Use data to identify unsafe carriers and reduce crashes. It did not achieve its intended goals. And its failure was not quiet. It was public, repeated and consequential. More than two decades later, the industry still lacks a reliable, trusted framework to identify and avoid unsafe motor carriers. That outcome is extraordinary given the time, funding and regulatory focus dedicated to the effort. CSA is the most visible example, but not the only one. The program relied on data that could not reliably predict crash risk, yet it was promoted as though it could. Investigations by the Department of Transportation Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office confirmed that key elements were not statistically valid for their intended use, prompting Congressional intervention. This is not refinement, but systemic failure. More broadly, it reflects a pattern: initiatives launched with hope, but without a solid grounding in how safety actually operates in the real world. A disconnect from the real world As a member of the FMCSA’s Carrier Safety and Accountability Subcommittee, I saw firsthand how far decision-making had drifted from operational reality. Too often, the FMCSA treated the industry as an adversary rather than a partner. The people responsible for selecting carriers, managing risk and ensuring safe freight movement every day were not meaningfully included. At one point, I renamed my working folder for the CSA Subcommittee meetings to “FMCSA Lies.” This name reflected my frustration with senior-level FMCSA staff who defended positions that contradicted data, real-world situations, and basic common sense. They also seemed unwilling to listen to reason. Meanwhile, the private sector adapted. In 2007, I founded QualifiedCarriers.com to provide actionable safety intelligence to the shipping community on motor carriers. It was later acquired by Highway. The market built what it needed because the FMCSA would not. The problem has been compounded by a focus on issues with little direct impact on safety outcomes. Examining the economics of broker-carrier relationships — such as pricing structures — does not prevent accidents, remove unsafe drivers, or improve training and enforcement. Safety is operational. It comes down to who is behind the wheel, how they were trained, and whether standards are enforced consistently across jurisdictions. Anything else is a distraction. A turning point For the first time in 22 years, there are signs that the FMCSA is refocusing on what matters. Under Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy and FMCSA Administrator Derek Barrs, the agency has begun taking steps that directly affect safety outcomes. In a short period, the FMCSA has shut down deficient commercial drivers’ license (CDL) schools, eliminating pipelines of underqualified drivers; actively enforced English language proficiency rules; begun cooperating with federal law enforcement on fraud, including risks tied to foreign-controlled dispatch operations; and started evaluating prior CDL issuances from substandard programs. The agency is also engaging directly with industry at major events, including the Mid-America Trucking Show and the Truckload Carriers Association annual meeting. At the Truckload Carriers Association meeting in March, Barrs received a standing ovation — not because enforcement is easier, but because it is finally becoming more meaningful. He may be the first FMCSA leader since Annette Sandberg to fully grasp that safety is an operational discipline grounded in qualification, enforcement and measurable outcomes. To the professionals inside the FMCSA: you now have leadership aligned with real-world safety. Support it, build on it and do not revert to frameworks that have already failed. To industry leaders — carriers, brokers, shippers and associations: engage constructively. Demand rigor, share data and hold the agency accountable while reinforcing what works. The path forward is not complicated. Put qualified drivers on the road, remove unqualified ones, enforce standards consistently, and use data that reflects reality. Do that, and safety improves. But we should be clear-eyed about the cost of delay. After more than two decades of inconsistent enforcement, corrective actions are now arriving all at once — tightening standards, removing capacity and straining the system. Had these steps been taken steadily over time, the disruption would be far less — and lives would almost certainly have been saved. For 22 years, the FMCSA drifted. Now it has a chance to lead and an obligation not to waste it again. Jeff Tucker is chairman of the National Industrial Transportation League’s Highway Committee. Contact him at jeff.tucker@tuckerco.com .

Trucking labor

How FMCSA missed the mark on safety — and how it can get it right

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">GLP-1 weight loss drugs are the most visible example of a force reshaping freight that supply chains weren’t built to detect, writes Paul Tonsager. </div>

GLP-1 weight loss drugs are the most visible example of a force reshaping freight that supply chains weren’t built to detect, writes Paul Tonsager.

<div class="phx-topic">Plus-size apparel is contracting. The numbers are in the earnings calls — store closures accelerating, revenues declining, and CEOs attributing the cause directly to GLP-1 weight loss medications. Approximately 25% of customers at major plus-size retailers are actively losing weight and deferring purchases until they reach their goal size. For freight operators, the translation is straightforward: fewer container bookings out of Bangladesh, softening elastane import volumes from South Korea and China, rising return flows through apparel distribution centers, and athleisure volume shifting to different origins, different factories, different lanes. That’s the GLP-1 story in freight terms. But the more important question isn’t what GLP-1 does to one commodity flow. It’s what GLP-1 represents — and whether the industry is paying attention to the category it belongs to. <h3>A different kind of demand shift </h3>Supply chains are inference machines. They watch what moved last season and build a model of what will move next. Carrier contracts, network design, capacity commitments, inventory positioning — all of them are calibrated to demand cycles that move in human decision-time. A trend emerges. Shippers respond. Freight adjusts. That’s the model. GLP-1 doesn’t fit the model. The consumer isn’t choosing differently based on preference. Their body is changing on a pharmaceutical timeline with no seasonal pattern and no historical precedent in any demand planning system. The signal isn’t coming from the market. It’s coming from a lab. That’s the category: structural demand shifts originating outside the market. And GLP-1 is not the only one in play. <h3>The pattern repeating </h3>The electric vehicle transition is doing to auto parts freight what GLP-1 is doing to apparel — but slower and at far larger scale. An internal combustion vehicle contains approximately 30,000 parts. An EV eliminates approximately 10,000 of them. Transmissions, exhaust systems, fuel injectors — the freight lanes serving these components are in structural decline. The lanes serving battery materials — lithium, cobalt, copper — are being built in real time, often on entirely different corridors with different modal requirements. Carriers and third-party logistics providers (3PLs) who built capacity around internal combustion engine component flows are holding assets against a demand base that is shrinking by design. Food and beverage may be the next GLP-1 impact larger than apparel. If 23% of US households are on these medications — up four points in a single year, according to Circana — and consuming meaningfully fewer calories, the freight infrastructure built around the old consumption baseline is exposed. Bulk grain movements, refrigerated less-than-truckload networks, warehouse footprint, replenishment frequency — all sized to a caloric demand curve that is quietly bending downward. The volume impact hasn’t fully materialized. It will. Remote work ran the same playbook earlier this decade. Office-bound freight flows — commercial furniture, facilities supplies, workplace technology, food service — didn’t disappear. They redistributed to suburbs and residential addresses in patterns that no demand planning model had anticipated. Last-mile density assumptions broke. The signal came from a public health event, not a consumer preference survey. <h3>What the industry is missing </h3>The common thread isn’t the specific force — pharmaceutical, technological, epidemiological. It’s the origin. These signals don’t come from the market. They come from labs, legislatures and external shocks. Freight networks optimized to read market signals — booking velocity, tender acceptance, seasonal lift — are structurally late to detect them. GLP-1 is the most legible example yet because it has a drug name, a measurable penetration curve, and identifiable freight consequences already showing up in origin mix and return volumes. That clarity is unusual. Most structural demand shifts are harder to see until capacity is misaligned, contracts don’t match the freight, and the repositioning cost is already real. The operators who outperform in the next decade won’t necessarily be the ones who move the most freight. They’ll be the ones who developed the capability to read demand signals that don’t originate in the market — and built network flexibility before the curve arrived. GLP-1 is the canary. The question is whether the industry treats it as a one-time anomaly or as a preview of the operating environment it now lives in. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals &amp; Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

Plus-size apparel is contracting. The numbers are in the earnings calls — store closures accelerating, revenues declining, and CEOs attributing the cause directly to GLP-1 weight loss medications. Approximately 25% of customers at major plus-size retailers are actively losing weight and deferring purchases until they reach their goal size. For freight operators, the translation is straightforward: fewer container bookings out of Bangladesh, softening elastane import volumes from South Korea and China, rising return flows through apparel distribution centers, and athleisure volume shifting to different origins, different factories, different lanes. That’s the GLP-1 story in freight terms. But the more important question isn’t what GLP-1 does to one commodity flow. It’s what GLP-1 represents — and whether the industry is paying attention to the category it belongs to. A different kind of demand shift Supply chains are inference machines. They watch what moved last season and build a model of what will move next. Carrier contracts, network design, capacity commitments, inventory positioning — all of them are calibrated to demand cycles that move in human decision-time. A trend emerges. Shippers respond. Freight adjusts. That’s the model. GLP-1 doesn’t fit the model. The consumer isn’t choosing differently based on preference. Their body is changing on a pharmaceutical timeline with no seasonal pattern and no historical precedent in any demand planning system. The signal isn’t coming from the market. It’s coming from a lab. That’s the category: structural demand shifts originating outside the market. And GLP-1 is not the only one in play. The pattern repeating The electric vehicle transition is doing to auto parts freight what GLP-1 is doing to apparel — but slower and at far larger scale. An internal combustion vehicle contains approximately 30,000 parts. An EV eliminates approximately 10,000 of them. Transmissions, exhaust systems, fuel injectors — the freight lanes serving these components are in structural decline. The lanes serving battery materials — lithium, cobalt, copper — are being built in real time, often on entirely different corridors with different modal requirements. Carriers and third-party logistics providers (3PLs) who built capacity around internal combustion engine component flows are holding assets against a demand base that is shrinking by design. Food and beverage may be the next GLP-1 impact larger than apparel. If 23% of US households are on these medications — up four points in a single year, according to Circana — and consuming meaningfully fewer calories, the freight infrastructure built around the old consumption baseline is exposed. Bulk grain movements, refrigerated less-than-truckload networks, warehouse footprint, replenishment frequency — all sized to a caloric demand curve that is quietly bending downward. The volume impact hasn’t fully materialized. It will. Remote work ran the same playbook earlier this decade. Office-bound freight flows — commercial furniture, facilities supplies, workplace technology, food service — didn’t disappear. They redistributed to suburbs and residential addresses in patterns that no demand planning model had anticipated. Last-mile density assumptions broke. The signal came from a public health event, not a consumer preference survey. What the industry is missing The common thread isn’t the specific force — pharmaceutical, technological, epidemiological. It’s the origin. These signals don’t come from the market. They come from labs, legislatures and external shocks. Freight networks optimized to read market signals — booking velocity, tender acceptance, seasonal lift — are structurally late to detect them. GLP-1 is the most legible example yet because it has a drug name, a measurable penetration curve, and identifiable freight consequences already showing up in origin mix and return volumes. That clarity is unusual. Most structural demand shifts are harder to see until capacity is misaligned, contracts don’t match the freight, and the repositioning cost is already real. The operators who outperform in the next decade won’t necessarily be the ones who move the most freight. They’ll be the ones who developed the capability to read demand signals that don’t originate in the market — and built network flexibility before the curve arrived. GLP-1 is the canary. The question is whether the industry treats it as a one-time anomaly or as a preview of the operating environment it now lives in. Paul Tonsager is founder and principal of IMS Advisory and writes the Signals & Switches newsletter on freight strategy at aet1998.substack.com. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

Trans-Pacific

When the demand signal comes from outside the market

Index

The index for each vessel type is produced from two variables: the number of those vessels chartered compared to the previous month, and the lead time to charter those vessels compared to the previous month. If fewer vessels are chartered than in the previous month, this implies more capacity may be available. If the lead time needed to charter vessels is shorter than the previous month, this implies capacity is more quickly available. Both these scenarios imply a more positive market position from the shipper’s perspective. A rising index line indicates a more positive market position due to the availability of capacity. The start point of 100 denotes the point that accurate results began. The trend is taken from this position (February 2025) and shows movement in capacity compared to this point. The individual indices of the five major vessel types are weighted and consolidated to produce. The data is collected by the Journal of Commerce Breakbulk Shipper Group

Breakbulk ship capacity indicator (JOC) 

JOC Breakbulk and Project Cargo Index Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The varied strategies employed by ocean carriers to manage war-driven volatility in bunker fuel prices are delaying the completion of some 2026–27 service contract negotiations as the key May 1 date looms.</div>

The varied strategies employed by ocean carriers to manage war-driven volatility in bunker fuel prices are delaying the completion of some 2026–27 service contract negotiations as the key May 1 date looms.

<div class="phx-topic">Small to midsize customers say ocean carriers’ handling of bunker fuel surcharges is complicating the timely completion of their 2026–27 trans-Pacific service contracts due to difficulty in comparing how the liners approach the surcharges. While most annual service contracts on the eastbound trans-Pacific typically start May 1, the carrier customers say any delay could force them to ship under costlier spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates until the annual service agreements are signed. Customers, both beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders, say that some carriers want them to agree to open-ended emergency bunker surcharges with no exit clause stipulating when the surcharges will end. “There is no real indicator as to when this is going to go away and how it is going to go away,” a forwarder who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. Bunker surcharges have become a hot-button issue since the war in the Middle East sent oil prices soaring in early March. The traditional bunker adjustment factor (BAF) found in most service contracts is being changed by some carriers from a quarterly to a monthly reset. More recently, some carriers are also levying emergency fuel surcharges on top of the BAFs. A carrier executive said that while some customers may feel carriers are attempting to force them to accept emergency surcharges or are unilaterally changing the BAF to a monthly reset, he believes there is a growing willingness by liners and their customers to reach a mutually acceptable remedy. “There is a mounting effort by most parties to meet in the middle on the level of surcharges,” the executive said. <h3>Emergency bunker surcharges could increase </h3>In his April newsletter, Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said emergency bunker surcharges (EBS) are likely to remain a key wildcard in the trans-Pac for months to come, and they could add significantly to shippers’ costs. “EBS levels are expected to fluctuate significantly,” Monroe said. “In the near term, the EBS could range from $200 to $600 per FEU, with the potential for spikes beyond that if fuel prices surge further. As a result, total landed freight costs may be far less predictable than the base contract rates suggest.” Bunker fuel prices essentially doubled in key global hubs at the start of the war, and although prices have eased a bit in some locations, they are still well above where they were before the conflict. And with no end in sight to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that has effectively blocked the daily transit of 20% of the world’s oil supplies, the specter of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bunker-fuel-shortages-loom-after-us-counter-blocks-strait-of-hormuz-6204678">bunker fuel shortages loom</a>, something that would add further upward pressure on prices. When bunker fuel prices are stable, the traditional BAF quarterly reset works fine for both carriers and their customers, said Rachel Shames, vice president of pricing and procurement at the forwarder CV International. But with some carriers now adjusting bunker prices monthly while adding seemingly open-ended emergency bunker surcharges to the equation, importers and forwarders are at an obvious disadvantage, Shames said “If the surcharge goes up, it should be able to come down when bunkers come down. It’s gotten very confusing,” she said. The more frequent changes in BAFs and EBSs now make it more difficult for forwarders to price their services to their clients in a timely manner, said Ben Coleman, president of forwarder Teampower Logistics. “You just have to accept that [carriers] will adjust their rates downward if bunker costs come down,” Coleman said. “Our main concern is that we want to remain competitive.” In the past, there was always a way to navigate through surcharges, said John Pace, senior manager for global logistics at Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear. “You would circumvent those carriers that were penalizing you with higher costs,” Pace said. “But in this particular case, it seems to be widespread among most carriers. There doesn’t seem to be a strategy that allows you to navigate through this.” <h3>Different carriers, different approaches </h3>A trade director at a consumer products company that imports about 6,000 containers per year said his service contract talks are bogged down by the different approaches carriers are taking to surcharges and how they impact base rates. For example, the source said one major carrier is asking for a $300 emergency fuel surcharge on top of the regular BAF that applies on base rates. But the carrier has not made clear under what circumstances it will remove the fuel surcharge or how it was calculated, he said. Meanwhile, a second major liner is passing along fuel expenses on its carrier haulage moves through an “inland fuel surcharge,” the source said. The carrier provides a formula, albeit one he says is complicated, about how it is calculating the new fee. The second carrier is also presenting shippers with a choice on how their BAF will be calculated, either on a trailing three-month or one-month basis. So, shippers themselves can take the bet on whether they want to ride out fuel volatility for a longer period or benefit from a quick dip in oil prices. “It’s gotten really complicated with all these extra fuel costs,” the trade director said. “We were in line to get a good base rate reduction, but now that’s all hidden by the surcharges.” A national importer of home furnishings who is in his third round of service contract negotiations said importers must be diligent and persistent in talks with carriers to protect against unwanted surcharges. “We pushed back on the emergency bunker surcharges, and we did so successfully,” the source said. <h3>Contract extensions possible </h3>With less than two weeks left before most 2025–26 service contracts end and most 2026–27 contracts take effect, some importers are asking carriers to extend their current contracts at least until mid-May while negotiations on new deals continue. But that’s something that must be done on a carrier-by-carrier basis because not all liners are willing to extend the existing contracts, forwarders say. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56cdc0fc-22a5-4ef9-9e3e-11f96f369c70"></dynamic-object></div>If a carrier refuses to extend the existing contract temporarily, importers will have to pay the current spot rate, which was $2,700 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,700 per FEU as of April 21, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Most midsize importers are currently paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 to the West Coast per their 2025–26 service contracts. “[Some] carriers are extending [existing contract] rates until mid-May,” Monroe said. An industry consultant who formerly served in logistics roles at big-box retailers said most of the larger retailers have finalized their 2026–27 service contracts or are ready to do so. However, smaller importers say they are meeting resistance from some carriers for escape clauses from emergency fuel surcharges. “The smaller ones, they don’t have any leverage,” the consultant said. “They’re at the mercy of the carriers.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com ">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.  Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Small to midsize customers say ocean carriers’ handling of bunker fuel surcharges is complicating the timely completion of their 2026–27 trans-Pacific service contracts due to difficulty in comparing how the liners approach the surcharges. While most annual service contracts on the eastbound trans-Pacific typically start May 1, the carrier customers say any delay could force them to ship under costlier spot/freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates until the annual service agreements are signed. Customers, both beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and forwarders, say that some carriers want them to agree to open-ended emergency bunker surcharges with no exit clause stipulating when the surcharges will end. “There is no real indicator as to when this is going to go away and how it is going to go away,” a forwarder who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. Bunker surcharges have become a hot-button issue since the war in the Middle East sent oil prices soaring in early March. The traditional bunker adjustment factor (BAF) found in most service contracts is being changed by some carriers from a quarterly to a monthly reset. More recently, some carriers are also levying emergency fuel surcharges on top of the BAFs. A carrier executive said that while some customers may feel carriers are attempting to force them to accept emergency surcharges or are unilaterally changing the BAF to a monthly reset, he believes there is a growing willingness by liners and their customers to reach a mutually acceptable remedy. “There is a mounting effort by most parties to meet in the middle on the level of surcharges,” the executive said. Emergency bunker surcharges could increase In his April newsletter, Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said emergency bunker surcharges (EBS) are likely to remain a key wildcard in the trans-Pac for months to come, and they could add significantly to shippers’ costs. “EBS levels are expected to fluctuate significantly,” Monroe said. “In the near term, the EBS could range from $200 to $600 per FEU, with the potential for spikes beyond that if fuel prices surge further. As a result, total landed freight costs may be far less predictable than the base contract rates suggest.” Bunker fuel prices essentially doubled in key global hubs at the start of the war, and although prices have eased a bit in some locations, they are still well above where they were before the conflict. And with no end in sight to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz that has effectively blocked the daily transit of 20% of the world’s oil supplies, the specter of bunker fuel shortages loom , something that would add further upward pressure on prices. When bunker fuel prices are stable, the traditional BAF quarterly reset works fine for both carriers and their customers, said Rachel Shames, vice president of pricing and procurement at the forwarder CV International. But with some carriers now adjusting bunker prices monthly while adding seemingly open-ended emergency bunker surcharges to the equation, importers and forwarders are at an obvious disadvantage, Shames said “If the surcharge goes up, it should be able to come down when bunkers come down. It’s gotten very confusing,” she said. The more frequent changes in BAFs and EBSs now make it more difficult for forwarders to price their services to their clients in a timely manner, said Ben Coleman, president of forwarder Teampower Logistics. “You just have to accept that [carriers] will adjust their rates downward if bunker costs come down,” Coleman said. “Our main concern is that we want to remain competitive.” In the past, there was always a way to navigate through surcharges, said John Pace, senior manager for global logistics at Revelyst, an importer of outdoor gear. “You would circumvent those carriers that were penalizing you with higher costs,” Pace said. “But in this particular case, it seems to be widespread among most carriers. There doesn’t seem to be a strategy that allows you to navigate through this.” Different carriers, different approaches A trade director at a consumer products company that imports about 6,000 containers per year said his service contract talks are bogged down by the different approaches carriers are taking to surcharges and how they impact base rates. For example, the source said one major carrier is asking for a $300 emergency fuel surcharge on top of the regular BAF that applies on base rates. But the carrier has not made clear under what circumstances it will remove the fuel surcharge or how it was calculated, he said. Meanwhile, a second major liner is passing along fuel expenses on its carrier haulage moves through an “inland fuel surcharge,” the source said. The carrier provides a formula, albeit one he says is complicated, about how it is calculating the new fee. The second carrier is also presenting shippers with a choice on how their BAF will be calculated, either on a trailing three-month or one-month basis. So, shippers themselves can take the bet on whether they want to ride out fuel volatility for a longer period or benefit from a quick dip in oil prices. “It’s gotten really complicated with all these extra fuel costs,” the trade director said. “We were in line to get a good base rate reduction, but now that’s all hidden by the surcharges.” A national importer of home furnishings who is in his third round of service contract negotiations said importers must be diligent and persistent in talks with carriers to protect against unwanted surcharges. “We pushed back on the emergency bunker surcharges, and we did so successfully,” the source said. Contract extensions possible With less than two weeks left before most 2025–26 service contracts end and most 2026–27 contracts take effect, some importers are asking carriers to extend their current contracts at least until mid-May while negotiations on new deals continue. But that’s something that must be done on a carrier-by-carrier basis because not all liners are willing to extend the existing contracts, forwarders say. If a carrier refuses to extend the existing contract temporarily, importers will have to pay the current spot rate, which was $2,700 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,700 per FEU as of April 21, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Most midsize importers are currently paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 to the West Coast per their 2025–26 service contracts. “[Some] carriers are extending [existing contract] rates until mid-May,” Monroe said. An industry consultant who formerly served in logistics roles at big-box retailers said most of the larger retailers have finalized their 2026–27 service contracts or are ready to do so. However, smaller importers say they are meeting resistance from some carriers for escape clauses from emergency fuel surcharges. “The smaller ones, they don’t have any leverage,” the consultant said. “They’re at the mercy of the carriers.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .  Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Carriers’ handling of fuel surcharges agitates small, midsize trans-Pac shippers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The terminal operator and port authority will enter a one-year exclusivity period to explore jointly developing and operating the proposed mega terminal that would increase Vancouver’s capacity by 50%. </div>

The terminal operator and port authority will enter a one-year exclusivity period to explore jointly developing and operating the proposed mega terminal that would increase Vancouver’s capacity by 50%.

<div class="phx-topic">Global Container Terminals (GCT) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) will explore the possibility of jointly developing and operating the port’s proposed mega terminal, they announced Tuesday. GCT will also pull its request to develop a new berth at its main Vancouver terminal. GCT and the VFPA said in a joint statement they’ve signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for studying the development of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The MOU will allow the parties to work exclusively over a one-year period “to share information and negotiate in good faith” toward a final development agreement, they said. First scoped out in 2013, Roberts Bank 2 would provide an additional 2.4 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver, which, by some estimates, would near full capacity by the 2030s. Vancouver has nominal capacity of 5 million TEUs currently. The project, for which the VFPA would fund the below-water work, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/planned-vancouver-mega-container-terminal-wins-environmental-clearance-5217090">received environmental approval back in 2023 after a lengthy review</a>. The MOU also marks the official end of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/vancouver-capacity-needs-spark-conflict-among-port-tenant-5223507">GCT’s own plan to expand Vancouver’s capacity</a> by adding a fourth berth to its Deltaport terminal. GCT had pitched the fourth berth that would add 2 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver as a faster option than building a new terminal. However, GCT said that as part of the Roberts Bank MOU with the port authority, it has permanently withdrawn its application for developing the berth. “Increasing container capacity is essential to meeting future demand, improving supply chain resilience, and maintaining Canada’s global competitiveness,” the joint statement said. “The MOU reflects a shared commitment to strengthen Canada’s trade infrastructure by exploring opportunities for partnership to deliver RBT2 in a coordinated, efficient, and commercially viable manner.” The move by GCT and the VFPA to advance the terminal project comes amid Canada’s broader push to diversify its trade away from the US. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/canada-looks-for-new-container-gateways-for-decoupling-from-us-6122714">Canada’s government has pledged that billions in funds</a> will be made available to trade-related infrastructure projects over the coming years. In the country’s east, the Port of Montreal has started land grading and below-water work on <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-world-to-build-big-ship-container-terminal-in-montreal-6077326">its planned Contrecoeur container terminal</a>, which DP World is slated to co-develop and operate. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Global Container Terminals (GCT) and the Vancouver Fraser Port Authority (VFPA) will explore the possibility of jointly developing and operating the port’s proposed mega terminal, they announced Tuesday. GCT will also pull its request to develop a new berth at its main Vancouver terminal. GCT and the VFPA said in a joint statement they’ve signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) for studying the development of the Roberts Bank Terminal 2. The MOU will allow the parties to work exclusively over a one-year period “to share information and negotiate in good faith” toward a final development agreement, they said. First scoped out in 2013, Roberts Bank 2 would provide an additional 2.4 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver, which, by some estimates, would near full capacity by the 2030s. Vancouver has nominal capacity of 5 million TEUs currently. The project, for which the VFPA would fund the below-water work, received environmental approval back in 2023 after a lengthy review . The MOU also marks the official end of GCT’s own plan to expand Vancouver’s capacity by adding a fourth berth to its Deltaport terminal. GCT had pitched the fourth berth that would add 2 million TEUs of capacity to Vancouver as a faster option than building a new terminal. However, GCT said that as part of the Roberts Bank MOU with the port authority, it has permanently withdrawn its application for developing the berth. “Increasing container capacity is essential to meeting future demand, improving supply chain resilience, and maintaining Canada’s global competitiveness,” the joint statement said. “The MOU reflects a shared commitment to strengthen Canada’s trade infrastructure by exploring opportunities for partnership to deliver RBT2 in a coordinated, efficient, and commercially viable manner.” The move by GCT and the VFPA to advance the terminal project comes amid Canada’s broader push to diversify its trade away from the US. Canada’s government has pledged that billions in funds will be made available to trade-related infrastructure projects over the coming years. In the country’s east, the Port of Montreal has started land grading and below-water work on its planned Contrecoeur container terminal , which DP World is slated to co-develop and operate. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

GCT, Vancouver port to jointly study Roberts Bank terminal project

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The possibility can’t be ruled out that carrier-controlled port operations will commence in the next few years at Charleston and Savannah, where the state-operated model has prevailed for decades.</div>

The possibility can’t be ruled out that carrier-controlled port operations will commence in the next few years at Charleston and Savannah, where the state-operated model has prevailed for decades.

<div class="phx-topic">Cargo routed through East Coast ports, including in the Southeast, will likely move increasingly through carrier-controlled terminals, the result of a long-term transformation of the regional port industry now in full swing. The possibility can’t be ruled out, for example, that carrier-controlled port operations will commence in the next few years at Charleston and Savannah, where the state-operated model has prevailed for decades. Meanwhile, Maher Terminals, the largest terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mahers-next-buyer-faces-billions-in-upgrades-decisions-on-capacity-6165792">is being prepped for sale</a> by Macquarie Infrastructure Partners with a possible price tag of $4 billion to $5 billion, according to one source, a sum within reach for terminal-hungry carriers flush with cash after a six-year run of profitability since the pandemic. A more favorable climate for expansion of carrier-controlled terminals along the East Coast stems from three main changes: deep-pocketed carriers aggressively pursuing terminal deals; favorable lease terms achieved by the Port of New York and New Jersey at multiple terminals, which is inspiring other East Coast ports to consider similar deals; and clarity around the dockworker union gaining jobs at new terminals once they are opened. That means the Savannah Container Terminal being developed across the river from the Georgia Ports Authority’s (GPA’s) sprawling Garden City Terminal as a newly opened facility is guaranteed to be manned by workers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) under the current collective bargaining agreement. Because the state cannot, by law, employ unionized dockworkers directly, the facility may be leased out to a third-party operator, possibly one aligned to an ocean carrier. It also means the Hugh Leatherman terminal at Charleston, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/sc-ports-strikes-deal-with-ila-to-fully-open-leatherman-marine-terminal-5192280">where the port waged an unsuccessful legal battle to keep the ILA out</a>, could fall into the hands of a carrier under a lease process being considered by the port. In Baltimore, Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) is a partner in a project to develop Sparrows Point, a former industrial site, into a 165-acre terminal. <h3>Terminals mean stable, profitable assets </h3>Ultimately, carrier investment in East Coast terminals will expand capacity in a region that has seen little of it while providing shippers in certain cases with the potential for improved service stemming from carriers’ direct control over their facilities. For carriers, controlling terminals means investing in typically stable and profitable assets made more attractive by their own volumes, as well as priority berthing and cargo handling rates. Carriers directing ships and volumes to their own facilities put the ports where they are located at an advantage versus those ports where carriers are just customers. The natural strategic alignment between carriers and terminals is why carrier-controlled facilities go back years. At New York-New Jersey, such operations go back to the origins of container shipping in the late 1950s. Maersk has been a terminal operator at the port since the 1970s, while OOCL controlled Howland Hook on Staten Island from 1995 to 2006. In pursuing terminal deals, carriers are hardly dissuaded by a 62% pay increase achieved by dockworkers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-ratifies-new-six-year-deal-with-higher-entry-pay-automation-protection-5951338">in the last contract ratified in early 2025</a>, nor their inability in the US market to collect terminal handling charges to offset what many carriers say are the highest longshore costs in the world. <h3>Southeast ports noticing recent NY-NJ success </h3>Recent deals at NY-NJ that have been favorable to the port have caught the attention of ports in the Southeast. The 2023 sale of Global Container Terminals’ <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-closes-deal-for-two-new-york-new-jersey-marine-terminals-5226315">Bayonne and Howland Hook terminals to CMA CGM</a>, which outbid other carriers including Hapag-Lloyd, was noteworthy because it committed the world’s third-largest carrier to infrastructure improvements, normally the responsibility of the port, while CMA CGM also agreed to share detention and demurrage revenues with the port authority. Macquarie in December of last year <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/macquarie-seals-deal-for-new-maher-lease-at-nynj-through-2063-6137751">renewed its lease for Maher terminals through 2063</a>, agreeing to terms that include responsibility for upkeep of its wharves and berths, while committing to increase capacity at the largest East Coast port by volume. That lease renewal will set the stage for a formal sale process now getting underway, according to multiple sources. While NY-NJ is in a strong negotiating position due to the lack of efficient alternatives to serve the large and wealthy New York metropolitan region, how much leverage other ports will have is an open question. For example, allowing an independent or carrier-controlled terminal operator free reign to compete for cargo could undermine states’ common user ports, yet curtailing their activities within lease terms could make those leases less attractive, sources tell JOC.com. For NY-NJ, the lease terms demanded in return for approving the CMA-CGM purchase stem from the 2000 effort by what was then called Maersk Sealand to bid out its East Coast hub operations, which ultimately secured a favorable lease at New York-New Jersey. According to one source, the controversial move by the carrier led to below-market lease rates that the port was determined to reverse in recent lease negotiations and sale approvals. Such insistence by the port <a href="https://www.stattimes.com/news/apm-terminals-to-retain-full-ownership-of-port-elizabeth-facility">led to the 2014 collapse of a deal by APM Terminals</a> to sell a stake in its Elizabeth terminal to Brookfield, an infrastructure investor. At Savannah, GPA President and CEO Griff Lynch said in an interview that the port authority is hoping to secure a permit for Savannah Container Terminal this year, with construction slated to begin a few years later in advance of the facility going online sometime in the early 2030s, depending on an assessment of demand. Lynch said the port is exploring a “partnership” approach whereby the GPA becomes a landlord, leasing the terminal to a third-party terminal operator, not an operator closely aligned to the port similar to the approach at the Port of Virginia, where the port owns the terminal operator, Virginia International Terminals. There would be less concern about the possibility of a third-party operator aggressively competing with Garden City, he said, if the overall result is more cargo, jobs and economic development opportunity for the state of Georgia. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Cargo routed through East Coast ports, including in the Southeast, will likely move increasingly through carrier-controlled terminals, the result of a long-term transformation of the regional port industry now in full swing. The possibility can’t be ruled out, for example, that carrier-controlled port operations will commence in the next few years at Charleston and Savannah, where the state-operated model has prevailed for decades. Meanwhile, Maher Terminals, the largest terminal at the Port of New York and New Jersey, is being prepped for sale by Macquarie Infrastructure Partners with a possible price tag of $4 billion to $5 billion, according to one source, a sum within reach for terminal-hungry carriers flush with cash after a six-year run of profitability since the pandemic. A more favorable climate for expansion of carrier-controlled terminals along the East Coast stems from three main changes: deep-pocketed carriers aggressively pursuing terminal deals; favorable lease terms achieved by the Port of New York and New Jersey at multiple terminals, which is inspiring other East Coast ports to consider similar deals; and clarity around the dockworker union gaining jobs at new terminals once they are opened. That means the Savannah Container Terminal being developed across the river from the Georgia Ports Authority’s (GPA’s) sprawling Garden City Terminal as a newly opened facility is guaranteed to be manned by workers represented by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) under the current collective bargaining agreement. Because the state cannot, by law, employ unionized dockworkers directly, the facility may be leased out to a third-party operator, possibly one aligned to an ocean carrier. It also means the Hugh Leatherman terminal at Charleston, where the port waged an unsuccessful legal battle to keep the ILA out , could fall into the hands of a carrier under a lease process being considered by the port. In Baltimore, Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) is a partner in a project to develop Sparrows Point, a former industrial site, into a 165-acre terminal. Terminals mean stable, profitable assets Ultimately, carrier investment in East Coast terminals will expand capacity in a region that has seen little of it while providing shippers in certain cases with the potential for improved service stemming from carriers’ direct control over their facilities. For carriers, controlling terminals means investing in typically stable and profitable assets made more attractive by their own volumes, as well as priority berthing and cargo handling rates. Carriers directing ships and volumes to their own facilities put the ports where they are located at an advantage versus those ports where carriers are just customers. The natural strategic alignment between carriers and terminals is why carrier-controlled facilities go back years. At New York-New Jersey, such operations go back to the origins of container shipping in the late 1950s. Maersk has been a terminal operator at the port since the 1970s, while OOCL controlled Howland Hook on Staten Island from 1995 to 2006. In pursuing terminal deals, carriers are hardly dissuaded by a 62% pay increase achieved by dockworkers in the last contract ratified in early 2025 , nor their inability in the US market to collect terminal handling charges to offset what many carriers say are the highest longshore costs in the world. Southeast ports noticing recent NY-NJ success Recent deals at NY-NJ that have been favorable to the port have caught the attention of ports in the Southeast. The 2023 sale of Global Container Terminals’ Bayonne and Howland Hook terminals to CMA CGM , which outbid other carriers including Hapag-Lloyd, was noteworthy because it committed the world’s third-largest carrier to infrastructure improvements, normally the responsibility of the port, while CMA CGM also agreed to share detention and demurrage revenues with the port authority. Macquarie in December of last year renewed its lease for Maher terminals through 2063 , agreeing to terms that include responsibility for upkeep of its wharves and berths, while committing to increase capacity at the largest East Coast port by volume. That lease renewal will set the stage for a formal sale process now getting underway, according to multiple sources. While NY-NJ is in a strong negotiating position due to the lack of efficient alternatives to serve the large and wealthy New York metropolitan region, how much leverage other ports will have is an open question. For example, allowing an independent or carrier-controlled terminal operator free reign to compete for cargo could undermine states’ common user ports, yet curtailing their activities within lease terms could make those leases less attractive, sources tell JOC.com. For NY-NJ, the lease terms demanded in return for approving the CMA-CGM purchase stem from the 2000 effort by what was then called Maersk Sealand to bid out its East Coast hub operations, which ultimately secured a favorable lease at New York-New Jersey. According to one source, the controversial move by the carrier led to below-market lease rates that the port was determined to reverse in recent lease negotiations and sale approvals. Such insistence by the port led to the 2014 collapse of a deal by APM Terminals to sell a stake in its Elizabeth terminal to Brookfield, an infrastructure investor. At Savannah, GPA President and CEO Griff Lynch said in an interview that the port authority is hoping to secure a permit for Savannah Container Terminal this year, with construction slated to begin a few years later in advance of the facility going online sometime in the early 2030s, depending on an assessment of demand. Lynch said the port is exploring a “partnership” approach whereby the GPA becomes a landlord, leasing the terminal to a third-party terminal operator, not an operator closely aligned to the port similar to the approach at the Port of Virginia, where the port owns the terminal operator, Virginia International Terminals. There would be less concern about the possibility of a third-party operator aggressively competing with Garden City, he said, if the overall result is more cargo, jobs and economic development opportunity for the state of Georgia. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

More carrier-controlled terminal operations could be coming to the East Coast

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The conflict could also spur increased spending on ports and landside infrastructure in the Middle East as investors seek to develop alternative transport solutions to avoid areas that have been closed or heavily impacted by the hostilities, executives said Thursday on a pair of webinars.</div>

The conflict could also spur increased spending on ports and landside infrastructure in the Middle East as investors seek to develop alternative transport solutions to avoid areas that have been closed or heavily impacted by the hostilities, executives said Thursday on a pair of webinars.

<div class="phx-topic">Blank sailings, service cancellations and routing changes are among the likely impacts on container shipping in the coming months from the Middle East war, shipping executives and analysts said Thursday. Longer-term, potential oil shortages could significantly affect global manufacturing, curtailing container volumes, they said. The conflict could also spur increased spending on ports and landside infrastructure in the Middle East as investors seek to develop alternative transport solutions to avoid areas, including the Strait of Hormuz, that have been closed or heavily impacted by the hostilities. The potential consequences of the US and Israel war with Iran were outlined in separate webinars Thursday hosted by ocean carrier Hapag-Lloyd and maritime consultancy Drewry. To date, the Iran war has had a limited impact on global trade except for escalating oil prices, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said during the carrier-backed event. He pointed out the carrier and shippers have come together to agree on alternative transport options, including road transport, for freight in the Gulf so that “92% of cargo that was stuck now has a clear delivery date.” A month ago, Habben Jansen said the war in the Middle East <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">had raised Hapag-Lloyd’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week</a>, a reality he said was “not something that you can sustain for very long.” The consequences of a protracted conflict are more severe with higher oil prices and oil shortages curtailing production of fertilizers, foodstuffs, plastics and manufactured goods such as shoes and electronics that use oil derivatives. Asia and the Indian sub-continent are especially susceptible to oil-related disruptions because of their heavy reliance on Middle East crude imports, shipments that have largely stopped following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Asia relies on the Middle East for about 60% of its total crude oil imports, while about 55% of India’s oil comes from the region. Björn Vang Jensen, an Xeneta executive industry advisor and former logistics manager, said the impact of the disruptions would be felt in the coming months. With the crop sowing season about to start across the Indian sub-continent, Asia fertilizer shortages will result in thinner crop yields and higher food prices, he told the Hapag webinar. Shortages are already being felt in Australia, where the federal government has recently secured an emergency supply of 250,000 metric tons of urea fertilizer from Indonesia. That came after Australia’s National Farmers Federation warned that fertilizer shortages and surging fuel costs would reduce the acreage planted, leading to higher food prices. <h3>Year will be a ‘mess’ </h3>Vang Jensen indicated oil shortages could hit manufacturing, especially in Asia, which would affect exports and container volumes. “There may be a peak season, but I doubt it. If there is, it’ll be muted,” he said. “There will be service cancellations, blank sailings, [and] routing changes if the conflict drags on ... the whole year is going to be a mess.” Simon Heaney, Drewry’s senior manager of container research, said the consultancy has now cut its growth forecast for global container port throughput to 1.8%, down from 2.2% in February. “Any further escalation [in the conflict] could force a bigger downgrade,” Heaney said on Drewry’s webinar. “Port throughput growth could sink to between 0.5% and 1.3%, which comes after two years of very strong growth of 6%.” With no sign the Middle East war will end quickly and ongoing uncertainty about the security situation, carriers are in no rush to return to the Red Sea/Suez Canal or the Arabian Sea, executives said. Lars Jensen, an industry analyst and CEO of Vespucci Maritime, told the Hapag-Lloyd webinar that Iran and its allies could easily threaten the Red Sea, especially since it has already closed Hormuz, and on Wednesday seized two container ships belonging to Mediterranean Shipping Co. Even if Iran was to reopen Hormuz, restoring access to the Persian Gulf and its ports, a quick return by ocean carriers was seen as unlikely. “Drewry’s view is that direct container ship sailings into Gulf ports will not happen until a substantive deal is reached and the risk of attack is very low,” Heaney told the Journal of Commerce. On the Drewry webinar, he said the longer-term consequences of the conflict would further entrench carriers to reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. Heaney also thought there would be greater interest in developing ports outside the Strait of Hormuz and upgrading inland infrastructure among the Gulf Cooperation Council, an intergovernmental political and economic union developing the 600-mile Saudi Arabia land bridge railway. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Blank sailings, service cancellations and routing changes are among the likely impacts on container shipping in the coming months from the Middle East war, shipping executives and analysts said Thursday. Longer-term, potential oil shortages could significantly affect global manufacturing, curtailing container volumes, they said. The conflict could also spur increased spending on ports and landside infrastructure in the Middle East as investors seek to develop alternative transport solutions to avoid areas, including the Strait of Hormuz, that have been closed or heavily impacted by the hostilities. The potential consequences of the US and Israel war with Iran were outlined in separate webinars Thursday hosted by ocean carrier Hapag-Lloyd and maritime consultancy Drewry. To date, the Iran war has had a limited impact on global trade except for escalating oil prices, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said during the carrier-backed event. He pointed out the carrier and shippers have come together to agree on alternative transport options, including road transport, for freight in the Gulf so that “92% of cargo that was stuck now has a clear delivery date.” A month ago, Habben Jansen said the war in the Middle East had raised Hapag-Lloyd’s operating costs by $40 million to $50 million per week , a reality he said was “not something that you can sustain for very long.” The consequences of a protracted conflict are more severe with higher oil prices and oil shortages curtailing production of fertilizers, foodstuffs, plastics and manufactured goods such as shoes and electronics that use oil derivatives. Asia and the Indian sub-continent are especially susceptible to oil-related disruptions because of their heavy reliance on Middle East crude imports, shipments that have largely stopped following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Asia relies on the Middle East for about 60% of its total crude oil imports, while about 55% of India’s oil comes from the region. Björn Vang Jensen, an Xeneta executive industry advisor and former logistics manager, said the impact of the disruptions would be felt in the coming months. With the crop sowing season about to start across the Indian sub-continent, Asia fertilizer shortages will result in thinner crop yields and higher food prices, he told the Hapag webinar. Shortages are already being felt in Australia, where the federal government has recently secured an emergency supply of 250,000 metric tons of urea fertilizer from Indonesia. That came after Australia’s National Farmers Federation warned that fertilizer shortages and surging fuel costs would reduce the acreage planted, leading to higher food prices. Year will be a ‘mess’ Vang Jensen indicated oil shortages could hit manufacturing, especially in Asia, which would affect exports and container volumes. “There may be a peak season, but I doubt it. If there is, it’ll be muted,” he said. “There will be service cancellations, blank sailings, [and] routing changes if the conflict drags on ... the whole year is going to be a mess.” Simon Heaney, Drewry’s senior manager of container research, said the consultancy has now cut its growth forecast for global container port throughput to 1.8%, down from 2.2% in February. “Any further escalation [in the conflict] could force a bigger downgrade,” Heaney said on Drewry’s webinar. “Port throughput growth could sink to between 0.5% and 1.3%, which comes after two years of very strong growth of 6%.” With no sign the Middle East war will end quickly and ongoing uncertainty about the security situation, carriers are in no rush to return to the Red Sea/Suez Canal or the Arabian Sea, executives said. Lars Jensen, an industry analyst and CEO of Vespucci Maritime, told the Hapag-Lloyd webinar that Iran and its allies could easily threaten the Red Sea, especially since it has already closed Hormuz, and on Wednesday seized two container ships belonging to Mediterranean Shipping Co. Even if Iran was to reopen Hormuz, restoring access to the Persian Gulf and its ports, a quick return by ocean carriers was seen as unlikely. “Drewry’s view is that direct container ship sailings into Gulf ports will not happen until a substantive deal is reached and the risk of attack is very low,” Heaney told the Journal of Commerce. On the Drewry webinar, he said the longer-term consequences of the conflict would further entrench carriers to reroute vessels around the Cape of Good Hope in southern Africa. Heaney also thought there would be greater interest in developing ports outside the Strait of Hormuz and upgrading inland infrastructure among the Gulf Cooperation Council, an intergovernmental political and economic union developing the 600-mile Saudi Arabia land bridge railway. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

International ports

Container shipping faces blank sailings, falling demand from prolonged Iran war

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is revising the excess empty container fee in place since 2023 as off-dock depots become the focal point of trucker ire.</div>

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is revising the excess empty container fee in place since 2023 as off-dock depots become the focal point of trucker ire.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of New York and New Jersey is expanding the fee it charges ocean carriers for long-dwelling empty containers to include off-dock depots outside of the port, a move that comes as port truckers face increasingly long and frequent delays when returning empties. But trucking interests question whether the now three-year-old fee will ever effectively address the port’s bouts of empties congestion, which impacts shippers downstream through delayed container returns and detention costs. In an April 1 email, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) notified ocean carriers and other stakeholders about the revised marine tariff that will go into effect May 1. One of biggest changes to the tariff is in the “container imbalance fee,” which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ny-nj-readies-revised-fee-plan-for-long-dwelling-empties-5194202">the port first instituted in 2023</a> to incentivize ocean carriers to remove <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-need-to-sweep-up-ny-nj-empties-fmcs-maffei-5204204">the pandemic-era backlog of empty containers</a> at NY-NJ. Along with new language that says ocean carriers must “proactively and regularly manage” their empty container inventories, the revised tariff also references empties lingering at “nearby depots” along with marine terminals on PANYNJ property. The PANYNJ said the container imbalance fee always considered empty containers at off-port depots, even if not explicitly stated in the original tariff. Port Director Bethann Rooney said in a statement the revised tariff reinforces the imbalance fee program, which also has a new formula for calculating the excess empties that face the $100-per-container fee. “The container imbalance fee is a key tool, helping reduce congestion caused by excess empty containers,” Rooney said. “This ... update strengthens the programs with clearer terms and greater accountability, ensuring our port remains one of the most reliable and fluid gateways in the country.” <h3>Hundreds of trucks turned away </h3>The trouble for truckers, though, is reliability and fluidity just outside of the port. APM Terminals contracted with one off-dock facility, Port Newark Depot (PND), in February 2025 to handle the empties from Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd as they started services under the Gemini Cooperation alliance. APM said in a statement the off-dock empty yard “helps preserve on-terminal space for full cargo moves and reduces gate congestion ... while giving truckers the flexibility to pick up empties for export and return them off-terminal when appointments are constrained.” However, Port Newark Depot also faces bouts of congestion and delays that have been frustrating truckers. “The on-street backups waiting to enter the depot have remained significant,” the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers said in its April newsletter, “Desperate truckers often line up several hours before the depot opens, contributing to the backups and causing traffic delays.” While sporadic, Bi-State President Lisa Yakomin said motor carriers have reported that drivers face four- and five-hour wait times to get into Port Newark Depot, putting truckers at risk of running out of service hours. Yakomin said Port Newark Depot is trying to manage the truck queues with a few relief measures, including signs showing the waiting times, adding another container handling machine, and providing return instructions to drivers the day prior. But the sheer volume of empties can still overwhelm the 12-acre facility. Yakomin said a three-mile-long line of approximately 500 trucks was turned away from returning empties on April 10 because Port Newark Depot was full by late afternoon. “APM chronically runs out of appointments for returning empties, so PND is taking the overflow,” Yakomin said. “But if the marine terminal can’t handle it, how can a single depot? Expecting one depot to absorb the empties is unrealistic.” To address the overflow, APM said in a notice last week to truckers that an additional PND lot will be open for receiving Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd empties. The additional four-acre site can handle between 1,600 and 2,000 empty containers. Port truckers have also been directed to a recently opened 35-acre site, World Wide Depot, for returning empty containers belonging to Zim Integrated Shipping Services. That site is on the same plot of land as PND. But Yakomin said more off-dock space for empties will just mean more off-dock congestion. The issue is being exacerbated by instances of truckers receiving conflicting empty return information from an ocean carrier and a marine terminal, she said, adding to motor carrier costs by sending truckers on dry runs. “The more room you give the ocean carriers to dump their empties and let them languish, they will use it,” Yakomin said. <h3>Next step could be FMC </h3>The PANYNJ said in its statement that “while [the current imbalance fee] has been largely effective, some congestion has taken place if and when ocean carriers allow containers to accumulate to a critical point.” To avoid that, the PANYNJ said the new tariff shortens the evaluation period for determining excess empties from one year to six months. However, Yakomin said it is not clear if that represents any improvement, given the previous tariff referenced a quarterly period for assessing excess empties. Despite the previous tariff being in effect since 2023, the port still has bouts of empty congestion, Yakomin said. “The ocean carriers need to be held accountable for not removing their empties in a timely manner,” she said. As for updating the imbalance fee program, “that’s a little too late.” Yakomin said the next recourse is through the US Federal Maritime Commission, which might have leverage into the issue due to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stakeholders-sorting-out-per-diem-bills-under-new-fmc-rules-5192186">the billing questions raised by empty returns</a>. She said it is not clear whether ocean carriers are charging shippers detention on an empty container that had a return location but was full. Inconsistent empty return instructions would also appear to violate FMC rules on providing accurate billing information. Moreover, motor carriers still face being shut out of marine terminals for unpaid detention bills, Yakomin added, a further violation of FMC billing rules. “We would like the FMC to take a look at incorrect billing, but also more clearly define accessibility for an empty return location,” she said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of New York and New Jersey is expanding the fee it charges ocean carriers for long-dwelling empty containers to include off-dock depots outside of the port, a move that comes as port truckers face increasingly long and frequent delays when returning empties. But trucking interests question whether the now three-year-old fee will ever effectively address the port’s bouts of empties congestion, which impacts shippers downstream through delayed container returns and detention costs. In an April 1 email, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) notified ocean carriers and other stakeholders about the revised marine tariff that will go into effect May 1. One of biggest changes to the tariff is in the “container imbalance fee,” which the port first instituted in 2023 to incentivize ocean carriers to remove the pandemic-era backlog of empty containers at NY-NJ. Along with new language that says ocean carriers must “proactively and regularly manage” their empty container inventories, the revised tariff also references empties lingering at “nearby depots” along with marine terminals on PANYNJ property. The PANYNJ said the container imbalance fee always considered empty containers at off-port depots, even if not explicitly stated in the original tariff. Port Director Bethann Rooney said in a statement the revised tariff reinforces the imbalance fee program, which also has a new formula for calculating the excess empties that face the $100-per-container fee. “The container imbalance fee is a key tool, helping reduce congestion caused by excess empty containers,” Rooney said. “This ... update strengthens the programs with clearer terms and greater accountability, ensuring our port remains one of the most reliable and fluid gateways in the country.” Hundreds of trucks turned away The trouble for truckers, though, is reliability and fluidity just outside of the port. APM Terminals contracted with one off-dock facility, Port Newark Depot (PND), in February 2025 to handle the empties from Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd as they started services under the Gemini Cooperation alliance. APM said in a statement the off-dock empty yard “helps preserve on-terminal space for full cargo moves and reduces gate congestion ... while giving truckers the flexibility to pick up empties for export and return them off-terminal when appointments are constrained.” However, Port Newark Depot also faces bouts of congestion and delays that have been frustrating truckers. “The on-street backups waiting to enter the depot have remained significant,” the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers said in its April newsletter, “Desperate truckers often line up several hours before the depot opens, contributing to the backups and causing traffic delays.” While sporadic, Bi-State President Lisa Yakomin said motor carriers have reported that drivers face four- and five-hour wait times to get into Port Newark Depot, putting truckers at risk of running out of service hours. Yakomin said Port Newark Depot is trying to manage the truck queues with a few relief measures, including signs showing the waiting times, adding another container handling machine, and providing return instructions to drivers the day prior. But the sheer volume of empties can still overwhelm the 12-acre facility. Yakomin said a three-mile-long line of approximately 500 trucks was turned away from returning empties on April 10 because Port Newark Depot was full by late afternoon. “APM chronically runs out of appointments for returning empties, so PND is taking the overflow,” Yakomin said. “But if the marine terminal can’t handle it, how can a single depot? Expecting one depot to absorb the empties is unrealistic.” To address the overflow, APM said in a notice last week to truckers that an additional PND lot will be open for receiving Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd empties. The additional four-acre site can handle between 1,600 and 2,000 empty containers. Port truckers have also been directed to a recently opened 35-acre site, World Wide Depot, for returning empty containers belonging to Zim Integrated Shipping Services. That site is on the same plot of land as PND. But Yakomin said more off-dock space for empties will just mean more off-dock congestion. The issue is being exacerbated by instances of truckers receiving conflicting empty return information from an ocean carrier and a marine terminal, she said, adding to motor carrier costs by sending truckers on dry runs. “The more room you give the ocean carriers to dump their empties and let them languish, they will use it,” Yakomin said. Next step could be FMC The PANYNJ said in its statement that “while [the current imbalance fee] has been largely effective, some congestion has taken place if and when ocean carriers allow containers to accumulate to a critical point.” To avoid that, the PANYNJ said the new tariff shortens the evaluation period for determining excess empties from one year to six months. However, Yakomin said it is not clear if that represents any improvement, given the previous tariff referenced a quarterly period for assessing excess empties. Despite the previous tariff being in effect since 2023, the port still has bouts of empty congestion, Yakomin said. “The ocean carriers need to be held accountable for not removing their empties in a timely manner,” she said. As for updating the imbalance fee program, “that’s a little too late.” Yakomin said the next recourse is through the US Federal Maritime Commission, which might have leverage into the issue due to the billing questions raised by empty returns . She said it is not clear whether ocean carriers are charging shippers detention on an empty container that had a return location but was full. Inconsistent empty return instructions would also appear to violate FMC rules on providing accurate billing information. Moreover, motor carriers still face being shut out of marine terminals for unpaid detention bills, Yakomin added, a further violation of FMC billing rules. “We would like the FMC to take a look at incorrect billing, but also more clearly define accessibility for an empty return location,” she said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

NY-NJ updating port tariff to combat rising backlog of empty boxes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The current pipeline of newbuilding programs for ultra-large container vessels vastly outstrips the construction of new berths intended to receive them, meaning we are literally building a fleet for which there may soon be no room at the inn, writes Robbert van Trooijen.</div>

The current pipeline of newbuilding programs for ultra-large container vessels vastly outstrips the construction of new berths intended to receive them, meaning we are literally building a fleet for which there may soon be no room at the inn, writes Robbert van Trooijen.

<div class="phx-topic">In his recent work, Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare, Edward Fishman argues that while great powers once rose by controlling geographic straits like the Bosphorus, modern power relies on different, often digital, levers. Today we are reminded that even in the Digital Age, physical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz can still disrupt supply chains to such an extent that they threaten global recession. But as we look toward a post-2026 horizon — assuming current geopolitical fires are eventually extinguished — a more systemic bottleneck looms: the stagnation of global port infrastructure. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6209409_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The math of global trade is currently heading toward a collision course. Available ocean terminal capacity at major gateways and hubs is reaching a saturation point. While the industry has leaned heavily on efficiency gains and automation to squeeze more “moves per hour” out of existing footprints, there is a lack of new physical capacity being added to the global map. We see a flurry of merger and acquisition activity — such as the planned sale of assets such as Hutchison Port Holdings — but shifting ownership of an existing facility in itself does nothing to accommodate the actual growth of global trade. The strongest evidence of this disconnect lies in the shipyards. The current pipeline of newbuilding programs for ultra-large container vessels vastly outstrips the construction of new berths intended to receive them. We are, quite literally, building a fleet for which there may soon be no room at the inn. <h3>Protecting margins — at the expense of cargo flow </h3>The hesitation to build is certainly not due to a lack of profitability. The investment case for terminal infrastructure is, in fact, staggering. APM Terminals, a subsidiary of Danish conglomerate A.P. Moller Maersk, reported a return on invested capital (ROIC) of no less than 16.1% in the 2025 fourth quarter, a figure that outperforms almost every other sub-sector in the maritime industry. So, why the inertia? There is no simple answer, but part of the answer lies in a classic “incumbent’s dilemma.” While new capacity would benefit the global economy by increasing competitiveness, it would also — at least temporarily — dilute the high returns currently enjoyed by existing operators. In some markets, bottlenecks are not just a nuisance; they are lucrative. This creates a perverse incentive for incumbents to lobby against greenfield projects, effectively protecting their margins at the expense of trade fluidity. The investment gap is most visible in the Southern Hemisphere. As industry analyst Lars Jensen highlighted at TPM26 in Long Beach in early March, demographic shifts identify Latin America and Africa as the next great trade frontiers. Yet, these are the very regions where the pushback against “carrier-owned” terminals is loudest. Local players often lobby against the participation of ocean carriers, arguing that vertical integration is anti-competitive. This is an understandable yet somewhat protectionist stance. It is the ocean carriers who possess the most direct incentive to drive capacity growth — they are the ones who need the berths to keep their growing fleet of vessels moving. The “dominance” argument falls flat when compared with the alternative: a stagnant, expensive status quo maintained by local (family-owned) oligopolies. <h3>The need to act now </h3>Any legitimate anti-competitive concerns can be easily mitigated through clear, enforceable neutrality clauses within concession agreements. These clauses ensure that while a carrier may own the terminal, it remains an open-access utility for the broader market. The construction of a greenfield site takes three to five years. If we do not break ground today, the “landside chokepoint” of 2028 and beyond could very well make today’s Red Sea/Strait of Hormuz disruptions look like a minor logistical hiccup. To secure the future of global trade, we must look past the protectionist rhetoric of local incumbents and embrace the capital and operational drive of carrier-terminal combinations. The returns are there and the demand is there. But the berths are not. It is time for a virtuous cycle to take over the industry. Robbert van Trooijen, founder of Inception Partners and a McKinsey Senior Advisor, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&amp;O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at <a href="mailto:robbert@inceptionpartners.org">robbert@inceptionpartners.org</a>. </div>

In his recent work, Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare, Edward Fishman argues that while great powers once rose by controlling geographic straits like the Bosphorus, modern power relies on different, often digital, levers. Today we are reminded that even in the Digital Age, physical chokepoints such as the Strait of Hormuz can still disrupt supply chains to such an extent that they threaten global recession. But as we look toward a post-2026 horizon — assuming current geopolitical fires are eventually extinguished — a more systemic bottleneck looms: the stagnation of global port infrastructure. The math of global trade is currently heading toward a collision course. Available ocean terminal capacity at major gateways and hubs is reaching a saturation point. While the industry has leaned heavily on efficiency gains and automation to squeeze more “moves per hour” out of existing footprints, there is a lack of new physical capacity being added to the global map. We see a flurry of merger and acquisition activity — such as the planned sale of assets such as Hutchison Port Holdings — but shifting ownership of an existing facility in itself does nothing to accommodate the actual growth of global trade. The strongest evidence of this disconnect lies in the shipyards. The current pipeline of newbuilding programs for ultra-large container vessels vastly outstrips the construction of new berths intended to receive them. We are, quite literally, building a fleet for which there may soon be no room at the inn. Protecting margins — at the expense of cargo flow The hesitation to build is certainly not due to a lack of profitability. The investment case for terminal infrastructure is, in fact, staggering. APM Terminals, a subsidiary of Danish conglomerate A.P. Moller Maersk, reported a return on invested capital (ROIC) of no less than 16.1% in the 2025 fourth quarter, a figure that outperforms almost every other sub-sector in the maritime industry. So, why the inertia? There is no simple answer, but part of the answer lies in a classic “incumbent’s dilemma.” While new capacity would benefit the global economy by increasing competitiveness, it would also — at least temporarily — dilute the high returns currently enjoyed by existing operators. In some markets, bottlenecks are not just a nuisance; they are lucrative. This creates a perverse incentive for incumbents to lobby against greenfield projects, effectively protecting their margins at the expense of trade fluidity. The investment gap is most visible in the Southern Hemisphere. As industry analyst Lars Jensen highlighted at TPM26 in Long Beach in early March, demographic shifts identify Latin America and Africa as the next great trade frontiers. Yet, these are the very regions where the pushback against “carrier-owned” terminals is loudest. Local players often lobby against the participation of ocean carriers, arguing that vertical integration is anti-competitive. This is an understandable yet somewhat protectionist stance. It is the ocean carriers who possess the most direct incentive to drive capacity growth — they are the ones who need the berths to keep their growing fleet of vessels moving. The “dominance” argument falls flat when compared with the alternative: a stagnant, expensive status quo maintained by local (family-owned) oligopolies. The need to act now Any legitimate anti-competitive concerns can be easily mitigated through clear, enforceable neutrality clauses within concession agreements. These clauses ensure that while a carrier may own the terminal, it remains an open-access utility for the broader market. The construction of a greenfield site takes three to five years. If we do not break ground today, the “landside chokepoint” of 2028 and beyond could very well make today’s Red Sea/Strait of Hormuz disruptions look like a minor logistical hiccup. To secure the future of global trade, we must look past the protectionist rhetoric of local incumbents and embrace the capital and operational drive of carrier-terminal combinations. The returns are there and the demand is there. But the berths are not. It is time for a virtuous cycle to take over the industry. Robbert van Trooijen, founder of Inception Partners and a McKinsey Senior Advisor, had a 33-year tenure with The Nedlloyd Group, P&O Nedlloyd and the Maersk Group. Contact him at robbert@inceptionpartners.org .

STG clears final obstacle to exit bankruptcy as lender dispute ends

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Carriers’ handling of fuel surcharges agitates small, midsize trans-Pac shippers

GCT, Vancouver port to jointly study Roberts Bank terminal project

More carrier-controlled terminal operations could be coming to the East Coast

Recent Commentary

How FMCSA missed the mark on safety — and how it can get it right

When the demand signal comes from outside the market

Top 5 Most Read Stories