Website_FS_640x340 FT.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Free/Free Trials

Supply chain

Events

Gateway

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Special Reports

Press Releases

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

Truckload

Truck brokers

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

Intermodal providers

Commentary

Podcasts

Webcasts

Videos

Annual Review and Outlook

Top Rankings

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Platts Containers Update

Custom Content

Resources

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Media Kit

Other

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

International rail

Top 100 US Exporters

Top 100 US Importers

Top 25 LTL Trucking Companies

Top 25 North American Ports

Top 25 Truckload Companies

Top 40 Container Carriers

Top 50 3PLs

Top 50 Global Container Ports

Top 50 Global Transportation Providers

Top 50 Trucking Companies

Editorial Calendar

Rail Directories

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Growth in spot refrigerated (reefer) truck pricing is accelerating, especially for loads originating in Florida and Mexico, amid tougher licensing and immigration enforcement. </div>

Growth in spot refrigerated (reefer) truck pricing is accelerating, especially for loads originating in Florida and Mexico, amid tougher licensing and immigration enforcement.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">An emerging supply-demand imbalance in refrigerated (reefer) trucking is pushing more freight to the spot market and increasing upward pressure on short-term rates as the peak trucking season begins. Dual <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/industry-group-calls-for-tougher-licensing-better-training-amid-trucker-crackdown-6101323">crackdowns on immigration and licensing</a> may be tipping a scale already depressed by low demand, trucking and logistics executives told the Journal of Commerce. Average US reefer truckload spot rates, including fuel surcharges, reached $2.47 per mile in the week of Oct. 19, up 10 cents from the week of Sept. 14 and 12 cents from the same week last year, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. Last year, average reefer truckload rates of $2.35 per mile in mid-October were up roughly 1 cent from September 2024 and down 5 cents from October 2023 levels. Spot reefer rates are rising at a faster pace — and earlier than usual — from produce markets such as South and Central Florida and along the US-Mexico border, said Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT. Demand may be rising for certain food and grocery shipments ahead of the US Thanksgiving holiday, but tractor and driver supply is shrinking faster. “I suspect what we’re about to see in the refrigerated trucking market is a significant exodus of capacity,” Croke said in an interview Monday. Reefer shipments posted on DAT load boards increased 9% sequentially last week, while trucks posted dropped 6%. “I’m not sure if it’s an exit or a diversion of capacity, or if it’s temporary or permanent, [but] we’re starting to see pockets of capacity tightness,” he added. Those “pockets” do not represent the entire US refrigerated market, however, and they may, or may not, be a precursor of future trends. “Some people will be exuberant and say the market is flipping, but it may be a blip as we head into peak season,” Croke said. Data from Truckstop.com and FTR Transportation Intelligence for the week ended October 24 show a stable spot market that tracked seasonal expectations. Refrigerated spot rates have risen four straight weeks, according to Truckstop.com, but the size of those increases has fallen steadily. ITS Logistics, a Reno, Nev.-based third-party logistics company, has noted a slight drop in truck capacity that it attributes to drivers shunning certain lanes to avoid enforcement. “When you have fewer drivers making those long hauls, it takes capacity out of the market,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain. “It’s like an extended Roadcheck week situation,” he said, referring to the annual truck regulatory enforcement blitz organized by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. The national event typically sees capacity tighten as truck drivers take time off. <h3>Northbound and down </h3>One of the hot spots is Central and South Florida, always a tough market for backhauls because of the imbalance in southbound consumer shipments and northbound freight. Shippers are having a tougher time finding capacity for refrigerated loads from Lakeland, Fla., the largest refrigerated freight market in Florida, Croke said. Spot reefer load posts in Lakeland jumped 28% from the previous week in the week ending Oct. 19. Average outbound spot reefer rates from Lakeland have risen by 10 cents per mile in recent weeks. In the lane linking Lakeland with Atlanta, for example, the average spot rate rose from $1.58 per mile to $1.67 per mile from September through Oct. 28, according to DAT. Shippers are turning to the spot market as their regular trucking providers come up short on capacity, Croke said. He attributes the growing imbalance to licensing and immigration enforcement at truck weight and agricultural stations along Florida highways. Croke sees similar conditions in the McAllen, Texas, refrigerated market, a major border crossing point for produce from Mexico. Spot reefer loads posted in the McAllen area rose 37% sequentially last week and 42% over the past month, according to DAT. Outbound reefer spot rates from McAllen rose 7 cents last week to $2.03 per mile, 14 cents higher than a year ago. The increase was sharper in some long-haul lanes. As of Monday, the average spot reefer rate from McAllen to Fresno, Calif., shot up from $1.36 per mile in September to $1.71 per mile in the last seven days. Rates from McAllen to Los Angeles jumped from $1.48 per mile in September to $1.87 per mile in the last three days. Fewer drivers from California are making the long-haul to southern Texas, Croke said, which means fewer drivers available to haul loads back to California from McAllen. “Those drivers are reluctant to run to the border for fear of arrest or just fear of delay,” said Croke. A truck inspection lasting hours can throw off a driver’s delivery schedule, sometimes costing an entire leg of a multi-day trip, he said. “Carriers will say they can’t afford to lose that, and they’ll stay home or drive locally.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An emerging supply-demand imbalance in refrigerated (reefer) trucking is pushing more freight to the spot market and increasing upward pressure on short-term rates as the peak trucking season begins. Dual crackdowns on immigration and licensing may be tipping a scale already depressed by low demand, trucking and logistics executives told the Journal of Commerce. Average US reefer truckload spot rates, including fuel surcharges, reached $2.47 per mile in the week of Oct. 19, up 10 cents from the week of Sept. 14 and 12 cents from the same week last year, according to DAT Freight & Analytics. Last year, average reefer truckload rates of $2.35 per mile in mid-October were up roughly 1 cent from September 2024 and down 5 cents from October 2023 levels. Spot reefer rates are rising at a faster pace — and earlier than usual — from produce markets such as South and Central Florida and along the US-Mexico border, said Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT. Demand may be rising for certain food and grocery shipments ahead of the US Thanksgiving holiday, but tractor and driver supply is shrinking faster. “I suspect what we’re about to see in the refrigerated trucking market is a significant exodus of capacity,” Croke said in an interview Monday. Reefer shipments posted on DAT load boards increased 9% sequentially last week, while trucks posted dropped 6%. “I’m not sure if it’s an exit or a diversion of capacity, or if it’s temporary or permanent, [but] we’re starting to see pockets of capacity tightness,” he added. Those “pockets” do not represent the entire US refrigerated market, however, and they may, or may not, be a precursor of future trends. “Some people will be exuberant and say the market is flipping, but it may be a blip as we head into peak season,” Croke said. Data from Truckstop.com and FTR Transportation Intelligence for the week ended October 24 show a stable spot market that tracked seasonal expectations. Refrigerated spot rates have risen four straight weeks, according to Truckstop.com, but the size of those increases has fallen steadily. ITS Logistics, a Reno, Nev.-based third-party logistics company, has noted a slight drop in truck capacity that it attributes to drivers shunning certain lanes to avoid enforcement. “When you have fewer drivers making those long hauls, it takes capacity out of the market,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain. “It’s like an extended Roadcheck week situation,” he said, referring to the annual truck regulatory enforcement blitz organized by the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance. The national event typically sees capacity tighten as truck drivers take time off. Northbound and down One of the hot spots is Central and South Florida, always a tough market for backhauls because of the imbalance in southbound consumer shipments and northbound freight. Shippers are having a tougher time finding capacity for refrigerated loads from Lakeland, Fla., the largest refrigerated freight market in Florida, Croke said. Spot reefer load posts in Lakeland jumped 28% from the previous week in the week ending Oct. 19. Average outbound spot reefer rates from Lakeland have risen by 10 cents per mile in recent weeks. In the lane linking Lakeland with Atlanta, for example, the average spot rate rose from $1.58 per mile to $1.67 per mile from September through Oct. 28, according to DAT. Shippers are turning to the spot market as their regular trucking providers come up short on capacity, Croke said. He attributes the growing imbalance to licensing and immigration enforcement at truck weight and agricultural stations along Florida highways. Croke sees similar conditions in the McAllen, Texas, refrigerated market, a major border crossing point for produce from Mexico. Spot reefer loads posted in the McAllen area rose 37% sequentially last week and 42% over the past month, according to DAT. Outbound reefer spot rates from McAllen rose 7 cents last week to $2.03 per mile, 14 cents higher than a year ago. The increase was sharper in some long-haul lanes. As of Monday, the average spot reefer rate from McAllen to Fresno, Calif., shot up from $1.36 per mile in September to $1.71 per mile in the last seven days. Rates from McAllen to Los Angeles jumped from $1.48 per mile in September to $1.87 per mile in the last three days. Fewer drivers from California are making the long-haul to southern Texas, Croke said, which means fewer drivers available to haul loads back to California from McAllen. “Those drivers are reluctant to run to the border for fear of arrest or just fear of delay,” said Croke. A truck inspection lasting hours can throw off a driver’s delivery schedule, sometimes costing an entire leg of a multi-day trip, he said. “Carriers will say they can’t afford to lose that, and they’ll stay home or drive locally.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Shrinking capacity pushing up US reefer truck rates

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US soybean exporters say the Trump administration’s financial bailout of Argentina is “facilitating” that country’s growing threat as a competitor to US growers. </div>

US soybean exporters say the Trump administration’s financial bailout of Argentina is “facilitating” that country’s growing threat as a competitor to US growers.

<div class="phx-topic">US soybean shippers are encouraged that US-China trade talks may reopen access to their largest market, but they say a deal won’t stop increased competition from exporters in Argentina aided by a planned US bailout of the Argentine peso. While most soybeans move via bulk vessels, the approximately 50,000 TEUs of containerized soybeans exported to China annually provide needed backhaul cargo for carriers. China’s tariffs of 34% on US soybeans virtually killed shipments to China so far this year — through September, US containerized soybean exports totaled just 5,134 TEUs, down 89% from the first nine months of 2024, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&amp;P Global — but a thaw might be in the works. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is a soybean farmer, said Sunday he anticipates China will now make “substantial” purchases of US soybeans following the administration’s announcement of a trade truce with Beijing. However, the US and China have yet to work out the details of potential tariffs. Whatever the outcome, agriculture shippers fear US exports will be further threatened by the emergence of Argentina as a competitor in the Chinese market. “China already purchases a lot of soybeans from Argentina,” Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, told the Journal of Commerce Friday. “US exporters say the US is now facilitating Argentina to be a bigger exporter.” Steenhoek was referring to the administration’s plan to bail out Argentina’s currency, along with the September announcement by Argentina President Javier Milei that he was suspending the country’s 26% tax on exports of grains. Because farmers harvest their soybean crops in the fall, the fourth quarter is normally the busiest time of the year for exports. But according to weekly sales data from the US Department of Agriulture Foreign Agriculture Service, the US has sold zero soybeans to China since Sept. 9. Soybean exports from Brazil normally fall off in the fourth quarter, Steenhoek noted, which in past years opened the door for US growers. “The US should be the supplier that steps in now, but not this time,” Steenhoek said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Michael Angell, Senior Editor, East Coast ports, contributed to this story. </div>

US soybean shippers are encouraged that US-China trade talks may reopen access to their largest market, but they say a deal won’t stop increased competition from exporters in Argentina aided by a planned US bailout of the Argentine peso. While most soybeans move via bulk vessels, the approximately 50,000 TEUs of containerized soybeans exported to China annually provide needed backhaul cargo for carriers. China’s tariffs of 34% on US soybeans virtually killed shipments to China so far this year — through September, US containerized soybean exports totaled just 5,134 TEUs, down 89% from the first nine months of 2024, according to PIERS, a Journal of Commerce sister product within S&P Global — but a thaw might be in the works. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who is a soybean farmer, said Sunday he anticipates China will now make “substantial” purchases of US soybeans following the administration’s announcement of a trade truce with Beijing. However, the US and China have yet to work out the details of potential tariffs. Whatever the outcome, agriculture shippers fear US exports will be further threatened by the emergence of Argentina as a competitor in the Chinese market. “China already purchases a lot of soybeans from Argentina,” Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soy Transportation Coalition, told the Journal of Commerce Friday. “US exporters say the US is now facilitating Argentina to be a bigger exporter.” Steenhoek was referring to the administration’s plan to bail out Argentina’s currency, along with the September announcement by Argentina President Javier Milei that he was suspending the country’s 26% tax on exports of grains. Because farmers harvest their soybean crops in the fall, the fourth quarter is normally the busiest time of the year for exports. But according to weekly sales data from the US Department of Agriulture Foreign Agriculture Service, the US has sold zero soybeans to China since Sept. 9. Soybean exports from Brazil normally fall off in the fourth quarter, Steenhoek noted, which in past years opened the door for US growers. “The US should be the supplier that steps in now, but not this time,” Steenhoek said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Michael Angell, Senior Editor, East Coast ports, contributed to this story.

China trade talks give US soybean exporters hope

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With other low-emissions bunkers such as methanol still in short supply, vessel operators are turning to dual-fuel LNG container ships as a transitional step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050. </div>

With other low-emissions bunkers such as methanol still in short supply, vessel operators are turning to dual-fuel LNG container ships as a transitional step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050.

<div class="phx-topic">With the global shipping decarbonization agenda brought to an abrupt halt at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in mid-October, an emerging reality is taking hold: LNG is becoming the go-to alternative fuel of choice for container lines. Increasingly, carriers are committing to LNG-fueled container ships over other alternative fuels such as methanol, seeing LNG as a viable and easily malleable step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050, as enshrined in current IMO policy. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6104141_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The number of LNG-fueled container ships on order has grown from 194 in late 2023 to 362 as of mid-October, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. What’s more, the percentage of vessels on order capable of running on LNG has grown to 40% from 23% during the same period, while the percentage of methanol-powered ships was unchanged at 15%. The 218 LNG container ships currently in operation represent 3.5% of the global container ship fleet. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. A senior carrier executive who asked not to be identified noted that even before the IMO <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/delay-in-imo-decarbonization-plans-robs-green-fuel-investors-of-certainty-6101250">punted on its net-zero framework</a>, LNG had already become the “mainstream marine fuel” for new vessel orders. “We could see [LNG] becoming even more significant in the current environment, because well-to-tank data is improving, methane slip will be dealt with and we see fossil but also bio and synthetic as pathways for LNG,” the executive added. Using LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it pivoted from methanol to LNG for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. And crucially, all LNG container ships in operation and on order have dual-fuel engines, meaning they can burn either LNG or traditional bunkers. That gives carriers a high degree of flexibility in terms of which fuel a ship actually uses at any given time. Depending on price and availability, carriers can operate using LNG or traditional bunkers or a combination, something vessel operations executives say is already happening. Estimates of the amount of LNG used vary widely; some sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce said LNG-capable ships only burn LNG 5% to 10% of the time, while others say it's closer to 50%. In other words, not only is LNG itself a transitional fuel, but LNG ships are being used as a transitional solution. Being the most consumer-facing maritime sector, container lines have long felt a need to be at the forefront of decarbonization. Through the World Shipping Council (WSC), they supported the IMO <a href="https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/hottopics/pages/faqs-the-imo-net-zero-framework.aspx">Net-Zero Framework</a> that was postponed for at least a year following strident opposition from the US. Patrick Verhoven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors, described the delay as a “major setback for the maritime industry.” Dual-fuel container ship and vehicle carrier orders account for 79% of the current order book, compared with 14% for the rest of the fleet, including tankers and bulk carriers, according to the WSC. With the order book dominated by the major carriers, given actual environmental regulation — in the case of the EU — and possible future requirements from the IMO, their effort to secure LNG tonnage at scale raises the bar for new entrants and smaller carriers looking to scale. LNG is more widely available than other alternative fuels such as methanol and, at least currently, is about 25% more expensive than very low-sulfur fuel oil. That, plus the ability to limit use of LNG, means carriers aren’t forced to charge customers a premium, which would undermine their competitiveness. In addition, solutions are being developed to mitigate methane emissions, which are 80 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, from LNG power plants. For example, a consortium including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines last year said it achieved a 93.8% reduction of methane slip from LNG-fueled vessels through catalyst and engine improvements. Still, LNG ships come with their own operational issues. The LNG tank must be cooled to -162 degrees C (-260 degrees F), and a minimum quantity must always be kept inside; otherwise, the fuel can’t be bunkered until re-cooled. Re-cooling, in turn, requires the ship to be idled for three days, with costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Nils Roche, CEO of Solvens Advisory and former deputy general manager for operations at PIL. As a result, ship operators frequently use traditional bunkers as their primary fuel and LNG only at selected times. If the LNG is not used for propulsion, it’s used to run auxiliary engines that create power for electricity and air conditioning onboard the ship. Roche said restrictive contracts with LNG suppliers also complicated matters. Fuel suppliers require one month’s notice to bunker a ship with LNG, compared with just two days’ notice for conventional marine fuel, cancellation fees can run into the millions, and ships typically only have a two-to-three-day window for bunkering. “If you are not available at that point, they will go to someone else,” he said. “And you just pray that somebody else in another couple of days will not make it, and you can take their slot.” Price is naturally a big consideration. Carriers will sometimes avoid LNG bunkering to the extent possible during December, January and February, due to higher winter prices. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

With the global shipping decarbonization agenda brought to an abrupt halt at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in mid-October, an emerging reality is taking hold: LNG is becoming the go-to alternative fuel of choice for container lines. Increasingly, carriers are committing to LNG-fueled container ships over other alternative fuels such as methanol, seeing LNG as a viable and easily malleable step toward a zero-carbon future by 2050, as enshrined in current IMO policy. The number of LNG-fueled container ships on order has grown from 194 in late 2023 to 362 as of mid-October, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. What’s more, the percentage of vessels on order capable of running on LNG has grown to 40% from 23% during the same period, while the percentage of methanol-powered ships was unchanged at 15%. The 218 LNG container ships currently in operation represent 3.5% of the global container ship fleet. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. A senior carrier executive who asked not to be identified noted that even before the IMO punted on its net-zero framework , LNG had already become the “mainstream marine fuel” for new vessel orders. “We could see [LNG] becoming even more significant in the current environment, because well-to-tank data is improving, methane slip will be dealt with and we see fossil but also bio and synthetic as pathways for LNG,” the executive added. Using LNG as an interim alternative fuel solves multiple problems for container lines. It can reduce absolute carbon emissions by up to 20%, according to the American Bureau of Shipping, so progress toward decarbonization can be demonstrated to customers and the public. LNG is also more widely available than methanol, the supply of which is constrained and prices stubbornly high and will likely remain so due to IMO inaction on its zero-emissions framework. Maersk, for example, cited a lack of adequate supply when it pivoted from methanol to LNG for its next round of 50 to 60 vessels. And crucially, all LNG container ships in operation and on order have dual-fuel engines, meaning they can burn either LNG or traditional bunkers. That gives carriers a high degree of flexibility in terms of which fuel a ship actually uses at any given time. Depending on price and availability, carriers can operate using LNG or traditional bunkers or a combination, something vessel operations executives say is already happening. Estimates of the amount of LNG used vary widely; some sources that spoke with the Journal of Commerce said LNG-capable ships only burn LNG 5% to 10% of the time, while others say it's closer to 50%. In other words, not only is LNG itself a transitional fuel, but LNG ships are being used as a transitional solution. Being the most consumer-facing maritime sector, container lines have long felt a need to be at the forefront of decarbonization. Through the World Shipping Council (WSC), they supported the IMO Net-Zero Framework that was postponed for at least a year following strident opposition from the US. Patrick Verhoven, managing director of the International Association of Ports and Harbors, described the delay as a “major setback for the maritime industry.” Dual-fuel container ship and vehicle carrier orders account for 79% of the current order book, compared with 14% for the rest of the fleet, including tankers and bulk carriers, according to the WSC. With the order book dominated by the major carriers, given actual environmental regulation — in the case of the EU — and possible future requirements from the IMO, their effort to secure LNG tonnage at scale raises the bar for new entrants and smaller carriers looking to scale. LNG is more widely available than other alternative fuels such as methanol and, at least currently, is about 25% more expensive than very low-sulfur fuel oil. That, plus the ability to limit use of LNG, means carriers aren’t forced to charge customers a premium, which would undermine their competitiveness. In addition, solutions are being developed to mitigate methane emissions, which are 80 times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide, from LNG power plants. For example, a consortium including Mitsui O.S.K. Lines last year said it achieved a 93.8% reduction of methane slip from LNG-fueled vessels through catalyst and engine improvements. Still, LNG ships come with their own operational issues. The LNG tank must be cooled to -162 degrees C (-260 degrees F), and a minimum quantity must always be kept inside; otherwise, the fuel can’t be bunkered until re-cooled. Re-cooling, in turn, requires the ship to be idled for three days, with costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Nils Roche, CEO of Solvens Advisory and former deputy general manager for operations at PIL. As a result, ship operators frequently use traditional bunkers as their primary fuel and LNG only at selected times. If the LNG is not used for propulsion, it’s used to run auxiliary engines that create power for electricity and air conditioning onboard the ship. Roche said restrictive contracts with LNG suppliers also complicated matters. Fuel suppliers require one month’s notice to bunker a ship with LNG, compared with just two days’ notice for conventional marine fuel, cancellation fees can run into the millions, and ships typically only have a two-to-three-day window for bunkering. “If you are not available at that point, they will go to someone else,” he said. “And you just pray that somebody else in another couple of days will not make it, and you can take their slot.” Price is naturally a big consideration. Carriers will sometimes avoid LNG bunkering to the extent possible during December, January and February, due to higher winter prices. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

LNG increasingly alternative fuel of choice for container lines

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Congestion at Rotterdam and other North European ports such as Hamburg has been exacerbated by the increase in breakbulk and project cargo volumes from industrial and energy projects, which leaves ports struggling to cope.</div>

Congestion at Rotterdam and other North European ports such as Hamburg has been exacerbated by the increase in breakbulk and project cargo volumes from industrial and energy projects, which leaves ports struggling to cope.

<div class="phx-topic">Multipurpose vessel (MPV) operators are facing worsening port congestion and longer berthing times, leading carriers to adopt a raft of measures including calling at alternative ports and using digital tools, maritime executives say. Among the worst hit ports is Houston, where the average wait for MPVs increased six-fold to 42 days in August from seven days in August 2024, according to Esgian, an Oslo-based software and data platform that monitors the MPV and roll-on/roll-off sectors. In Rotterdam, anchorage wait times have tripled, said Esgian. Norwegian MPV operator G2 Ocean also highlighted lengthy delays at some Middle Eastern ports, with MPV vessels waiting between 25 and 30 days, and in South America, with vessels waiting up to 15 days. Saudi Arabia has been especially affected by congestion-related delays, G2 Ocean said. Edwin Peh, G2 Ocean’s project cargo director for the Pacific and global capital projects, said congestion is occurring in several regions “with persistent delays at key terminals and vessels waiting days or even weeks for berth access.” Peh said Los Angeles and Long Beach are among the US West Coast ports affected by long waiting times that have impacted MPV operators. By comparison, other ports — including Benicia, north of Oakland — have seen an increase in port calls “suggesting operators are diversifying and spreading calls more evenly,” according to Esgian. “Congestion has clearly worsened over the past few months — particularly at major hubs like Rotterdam,” Gustav Heiberg, Esgian’s senior vice president and head of shipping, told the Journal of Commerce. “Earlier this year [in Rotterdam], we recorded 34 days of cumulative anchorage time across 33 events,” Heiberg said. “By August, that figure had risen to 99 days across 45 events.” Events include bad weather, labor disruptions, and high landside utilization. “We’re seeing operators adapt in several ways to manage congestion and maintain reliability,” he added. “Many are spreading cargo volumes across multiple ports, while others are adjusting project timelines or shipment sequencing to align with available capacity.” <h3>Volumes rise due to industrial, energy projects </h3>Congestion at Rotterdam and other North European ports such as Hamburg has been exacerbated by the increase in breakbulk and project cargo volumes from industrial and energy projects, which leaves ports struggling to cope. Not only have these projects led to an increase in ship movements, but the intense cargo handling requirements of bulky and heavy shipments is straining port and inland infrastructure, especially where breakbulk handling capacity and experience are limited, G2 Ocean’s Peh said. Breakbulk cargoes take longer to unload and require skilled handling compared with containerized freight. “With the increased cargo demand, dockworkers are drawn to ports near major project sites, creating labor shortages at other ports, resulting in slower operations and increased congestion,” Peh said. Highlighting the surge in Rotterdam, Heiberg said it is one of the busiest ports for MPV operations, handling an average of about 224 calls per month. “The majority of these — about 78% so far this year — are short-sea operations linked to project-related cargo such as offshore wind foundations, steel pipes for the Porthos carbon storage project, and steel plates for the offshore industry,” Heiberg said. He noted that factors such as low water levels on the River Rhine and US import duties on European and Chinese exports haven’t yet had a measurable impact on MPV traffic in the first half of this year. “That reinforces the view that current congestion is largely driven by port and landside operational factors, rather than macro trade shifts, even as vessel calls and project cargo deliveries continue to rise,” Heiberg said. Executives from other operators including AAL Shipping and dship Carriers, which is part of the deugro group, highlighted growing congestion as a significant challenge. “It’s hard to perform and meet the requirements of clients because of congestion,” Henrik Hansen, AAL Shipping’s general manager for the Americas, said at the recent Breakbulk Americas conference. “We want the ships to move — that’s how carriers make money.” <h3>Alternative ports </h3>G2 Ocean is among the carriers using digital tools to monitor port conditions in real time and switch to alternative ports, Peh said. “This provides the flexibility to bypass the most congested ports,” he said. “This approach helps ensure that our customers’ cargo keeps moving, even when faced with challenging port environments.” But there’s a potential downside to seeking alternative ports, including longer transit times or additional administrative requirements, Peh added. “Congestion can also influence the way breakbulk/project cargoes are transported, leading shippers to explore alternative transportation methods such as multimodal solutions to avoid port congestion,” he said. Some carriers have also developed strategic partnerships with shore-side assets such as local port agents and port operators to coordinate arrivals, thereby reducing waiting times and ensuring improved access to berths, executives said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Multipurpose vessel (MPV) operators are facing worsening port congestion and longer berthing times, leading carriers to adopt a raft of measures including calling at alternative ports and using digital tools, maritime executives say. Among the worst hit ports is Houston, where the average wait for MPVs increased six-fold to 42 days in August from seven days in August 2024, according to Esgian, an Oslo-based software and data platform that monitors the MPV and roll-on/roll-off sectors. In Rotterdam, anchorage wait times have tripled, said Esgian. Norwegian MPV operator G2 Ocean also highlighted lengthy delays at some Middle Eastern ports, with MPV vessels waiting between 25 and 30 days, and in South America, with vessels waiting up to 15 days. Saudi Arabia has been especially affected by congestion-related delays, G2 Ocean said. Edwin Peh, G2 Ocean’s project cargo director for the Pacific and global capital projects, said congestion is occurring in several regions “with persistent delays at key terminals and vessels waiting days or even weeks for berth access.” Peh said Los Angeles and Long Beach are among the US West Coast ports affected by long waiting times that have impacted MPV operators. By comparison, other ports — including Benicia, north of Oakland — have seen an increase in port calls “suggesting operators are diversifying and spreading calls more evenly,” according to Esgian. “Congestion has clearly worsened over the past few months — particularly at major hubs like Rotterdam,” Gustav Heiberg, Esgian’s senior vice president and head of shipping, told the Journal of Commerce. “Earlier this year [in Rotterdam], we recorded 34 days of cumulative anchorage time across 33 events,” Heiberg said. “By August, that figure had risen to 99 days across 45 events.” Events include bad weather, labor disruptions, and high landside utilization. “We’re seeing operators adapt in several ways to manage congestion and maintain reliability,” he added. “Many are spreading cargo volumes across multiple ports, while others are adjusting project timelines or shipment sequencing to align with available capacity.” Volumes rise due to industrial, energy projects Congestion at Rotterdam and other North European ports such as Hamburg has been exacerbated by the increase in breakbulk and project cargo volumes from industrial and energy projects, which leaves ports struggling to cope. Not only have these projects led to an increase in ship movements, but the intense cargo handling requirements of bulky and heavy shipments is straining port and inland infrastructure, especially where breakbulk handling capacity and experience are limited, G2 Ocean’s Peh said. Breakbulk cargoes take longer to unload and require skilled handling compared with containerized freight. “With the increased cargo demand, dockworkers are drawn to ports near major project sites, creating labor shortages at other ports, resulting in slower operations and increased congestion,” Peh said. Highlighting the surge in Rotterdam, Heiberg said it is one of the busiest ports for MPV operations, handling an average of about 224 calls per month. “The majority of these — about 78% so far this year — are short-sea operations linked to project-related cargo such as offshore wind foundations, steel pipes for the Porthos carbon storage project, and steel plates for the offshore industry,” Heiberg said. He noted that factors such as low water levels on the River Rhine and US import duties on European and Chinese exports haven’t yet had a measurable impact on MPV traffic in the first half of this year. “That reinforces the view that current congestion is largely driven by port and landside operational factors, rather than macro trade shifts, even as vessel calls and project cargo deliveries continue to rise,” Heiberg said. Executives from other operators including AAL Shipping and dship Carriers, which is part of the deugro group, highlighted growing congestion as a significant challenge. “It’s hard to perform and meet the requirements of clients because of congestion,” Henrik Hansen, AAL Shipping’s general manager for the Americas, said at the recent Breakbulk Americas conference. “We want the ships to move — that’s how carriers make money.” Alternative ports G2 Ocean is among the carriers using digital tools to monitor port conditions in real time and switch to alternative ports, Peh said. “This provides the flexibility to bypass the most congested ports,” he said. “This approach helps ensure that our customers’ cargo keeps moving, even when faced with challenging port environments.” But there’s a potential downside to seeking alternative ports, including longer transit times or additional administrative requirements, Peh added. “Congestion can also influence the way breakbulk/project cargoes are transported, leading shippers to explore alternative transportation methods such as multimodal solutions to avoid port congestion,” he said. Some carriers have also developed strategic partnerships with shore-side assets such as local port agents and port operators to coordinate arrivals, thereby reducing waiting times and ensuring improved access to berths, executives said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

MPV operators adapt to congestion by shifting to alternative ports, digital tools

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on the two carriers, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the fee structure.</div>

The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on the two carriers, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the fee structure.

<div class="phx-topic">New US port fees targeting China’s maritime industry cost Cosco Shipping and its OOCL subsidiary just over $42 million in the first week the fees were in place, according to vessel-tracking data detailing their US calls. Outside of those two carriers, the fees have largely fallen on one small China-based carrier and three small Chinese-built container ships, with those costs likely totaling a few million dollars. The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on Cosco and OOCL, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the US fee structure. Vessel tracking data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows that eight Cosco-operated container ships and seven operated by OOCL made a US port call in Oct. 14–20. Oct. 14 was the first day that ocean carriers would be subject to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) penalties targeting China’s maritime industry</a>. The fees, which were the result of a USTR investigation started in 2024 and concluded earlier this year, are $50 per net ton for the first US port call of a Chinese-operated ship in the first year of implementation, with the levy escalating annually through 2028. Chinese-built ships operated by other carriers face the higher of either $18 per ton or $120 per container discharged. The 15 ships operated by Cosco and OOCL during the first week of the fees, most of which are post-Panamax size, had net tonnage of 855,718, Sea-web data shows. Based on the USTR fee schedule, that would equate to $42.8 million in fees for the ships on their initial port call. The size of each fee paid varied widely. The 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Jasmine, which called Savannah on Oct. 14, would have incurred a $4.2 million fee based on its net tonnage. The 4,253-TEU Felixstowe, also operated by Cosco, faced a $1.2 million fee due to its smaller size. Nine of the Cosco and OOCL ships were built in South Korea, while four were built in China and one in Japan. At the first week’s run rate, Cosco and OOCL could incur $2.2 billion in US port fees during the first year. That aligns with a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-exceed-2b-for-cosco-oocl-hsbc-6077305">September estimate from investment bank HSBC</a>, which said the fees represent between 5% to 7% of the two carriers’ annual combined revenue. Cosco and the USTR did not respond to requests for comment. Cosco, which is the majority owner of OOCL, decried the USTR fees as a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-slams-us-port-fees-as-other-carriers-reckon-with-potential-costs-5989606">“discriminatory decision”</a> when they were first unveiled in April. However, one month ahead of the Oct. 14 start date, Cosco said it remained committed to the US market, with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-says-no-changes-to-us-services-as-new-port-fees-approach-6082151">no plans to charge shippers for the fee</a>. HSBC estimated the US port fee would translate to a cost for Chinese carriers of about $600 per container, while an April report from consultancy BluSpark said the fee could be $550 per container. Assuming the 15 ships that called in Oct. 14–20 were at fully loaded capacity, the fee translates to about $657 per container. The only other China-based carrier to have faced the fee in the first week was China United Lines, whose 4,395-TEU SM Tianjin called Seattle on Oct. 16. Based on its net tonnage, it would have incurred a $1.3 million fee for that call. <h3>Zim also faces fees </h3>Out of 160 container ships over 4,000-TEU that called the US between Oct. 14 and Oct. 20, only three not operated by Cosco or OOCL were built in China and likely subject to the fees, according to Sea-web, showing the extent to which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinese-tonnage-moving-out-of-us-container-trade-ahead-of-new-fees-xeneta-6081320">other ocean carriers redeployed Chinese tonnage to avoid the fees</a>. The figure does not include two Chinese-built ships operated by CMA CGM’s US-flag subsidiary APL because <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinas-port-fees-forcing-gemini-to-shift-out-us-flag-ships-6097952">the USTR has exempted those ships</a>. It also does not include container/roll-on/roll-off vessels such as those operated by Atlantic Container Line, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/acl-weighs-options-after-facing-annual-35-million-ustr-port-bill-6102368">itself facing $1.4 million in costs for each port call due to the USTR’s designation of the carrier’s vessels</a>. Zim operated all three of the Chinese-built ships calling the US, all between 5,315 and 7,000 TEU in nominal capacity. Based on the net tonnage of the three ships, Zim likely incurred fees between $450,000 and $700,000 for the first US call. While it’s unclear how many containers the ships discharged, the cost would translate to approximately $270 per loaded container. A week prior to the fees going into effect, Zim said in a customer advisory that it would not charge shippers for the fees, but it “reserves the right to reassess this position should additional cost implications or regulation evolve.” Zim did not return a request for comment. Zim operated a fourth Chinese-built ship, the 4,249-TEU Spyros V, but it’s below the 55,000 deadweight tons threshold for the USTR fees. Similarly, the China-built, 4,250-TEU Vancouver Star, operated by Hapag-Lloyd, is also below the size threshold. This article has been updated to reflect that the Spyros V and Vancouver Star are not subject to the USTR’s port fees due to their size. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a></div>

New US port fees targeting China’s maritime industry cost Cosco Shipping and its OOCL subsidiary just over $42 million in the first week the fees were in place, according to vessel-tracking data detailing their US calls. Outside of those two carriers, the fees have largely fallen on one small China-based carrier and three small Chinese-built container ships, with those costs likely totaling a few million dollars. The early estimates coincide with prior forecasts of how much of the new port fees would fall on Cosco and OOCL, with their combined fee burden potentially reaching $2 billion in a year’s time should no changes be made to the US fee structure. Vessel tracking data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows that eight Cosco-operated container ships and seven operated by OOCL made a US port call in Oct. 14–20. Oct. 14 was the first day that ocean carriers would be subject to the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) penalties targeting China’s maritime industry . The fees, which were the result of a USTR investigation started in 2024 and concluded earlier this year, are $50 per net ton for the first US port call of a Chinese-operated ship in the first year of implementation, with the levy escalating annually through 2028. Chinese-built ships operated by other carriers face the higher of either $18 per ton or $120 per container discharged. The 15 ships operated by Cosco and OOCL during the first week of the fees, most of which are post-Panamax size, had net tonnage of 855,718, Sea-web data shows. Based on the USTR fee schedule, that would equate to $42.8 million in fees for the ships on their initial port call. The size of each fee paid varied widely. The 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Jasmine, which called Savannah on Oct. 14, would have incurred a $4.2 million fee based on its net tonnage. The 4,253-TEU Felixstowe, also operated by Cosco, faced a $1.2 million fee due to its smaller size. Nine of the Cosco and OOCL ships were built in South Korea, while four were built in China and one in Japan. At the first week’s run rate, Cosco and OOCL could incur $2.2 billion in US port fees during the first year. That aligns with a September estimate from investment bank HSBC , which said the fees represent between 5% to 7% of the two carriers’ annual combined revenue. Cosco and the USTR did not respond to requests for comment. Cosco, which is the majority owner of OOCL, decried the USTR fees as a “discriminatory decision” when they were first unveiled in April. However, one month ahead of the Oct. 14 start date, Cosco said it remained committed to the US market, with no plans to charge shippers for the fee . HSBC estimated the US port fee would translate to a cost for Chinese carriers of about $600 per container, while an April report from consultancy BluSpark said the fee could be $550 per container. Assuming the 15 ships that called in Oct. 14–20 were at fully loaded capacity, the fee translates to about $657 per container. The only other China-based carrier to have faced the fee in the first week was China United Lines, whose 4,395-TEU SM Tianjin called Seattle on Oct. 16. Based on its net tonnage, it would have incurred a $1.3 million fee for that call. Zim also faces fees Out of 160 container ships over 4,000-TEU that called the US between Oct. 14 and Oct. 20, only three not operated by Cosco or OOCL were built in China and likely subject to the fees, according to Sea-web, showing the extent to which other ocean carriers redeployed Chinese tonnage to avoid the fees . The figure does not include two Chinese-built ships operated by CMA CGM’s US-flag subsidiary APL because the USTR has exempted those ships . It also does not include container/roll-on/roll-off vessels such as those operated by Atlantic Container Line, itself facing $1.4 million in costs for each port call due to the USTR’s designation of the carrier’s vessels . Zim operated all three of the Chinese-built ships calling the US, all between 5,315 and 7,000 TEU in nominal capacity. Based on the net tonnage of the three ships, Zim likely incurred fees between $450,000 and $700,000 for the first US call. While it’s unclear how many containers the ships discharged, the cost would translate to approximately $270 per loaded container. A week prior to the fees going into effect, Zim said in a customer advisory that it would not charge shippers for the fees, but it “reserves the right to reassess this position should additional cost implications or regulation evolve.” Zim did not return a request for comment. Zim operated a fourth Chinese-built ship, the 4,249-TEU Spyros V, but it’s below the 55,000 deadweight tons threshold for the USTR fees. Similarly, the China-built, 4,250-TEU Vancouver Star, operated by Hapag-Lloyd, is also below the size threshold. This article has been updated to reflect that the Spyros V and Vancouver Star are not subject to the USTR’s port fees due to their size. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

Cosco, OOCL incurred over $40 million in initial US port fees

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">It would be foolish to extrapolate the road ahead based on one new service, but the fact that MSC brings so many things to bear and can move so quickly implies that others will have to be at the top of their game to compete, writes Jeremy Masters. </div>

It would be foolish to extrapolate the road ahead based on one new service, but the fact that MSC brings so many things to bear and can move so quickly implies that others will have to be at the top of their game to compete, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">The playing field is not even when pursuing new route opportunities in north-south trades. The ever-increasing scale of the biggest players simply means that they have more assets to deploy. Raids on the NOO (non-operating owner) second-hand fleet by Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) and CMA CGM in the 2000- to 8000-TEU ship size category and the consequent squeeze on ships available in the charter market (causing high rates on what is available) mean that attractive propositions in developing trades end up on the back burner for carriers requiring charter tonnage. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6102919_0.1.jpg"></img></div>This, of course, could change quite rapidly if big ship oversupply results in cascading and the return of smaller tonnage to NOOs. Right now, however, the only option for many carriers is to move ships off a weak trade and redeploy them to a promising one. This is not an easy decision, but waiting for the charter market to change is not a solution as it will change for everybody at the same time. Meantime, opportunities come and go. Developing trades is a particular challenge as volume growth is volatile, imbalances can be big, and these trades are easier to tip into oversupply if a sizeable capacity injection is made. <h3>US to West and South Africa </h3>An interesting case study of punching power and nimbleness is the recent move by MSC to introduce a new stand-alone service connecting the US with West and South Africa. With Maersk’s withdrawal from the joint service with MSC connecting the US East Coast and Freeport (and thus the US Gulf) with South Africa, it’s not a surprise that MSC would step up to be the only direct operator in the trade. There may be hiccups at the political level, but trade patterns tend to be more robust than the short-term programs of any government. MSC — never slow to identify an opportunity — has grabbed Maersk’s withdrawal as a gift, not only to dominate one trade but also take pole position in another by adding West Africa in the rotation in both directions. Thus, MSC ties in critical mass and alleviates any concern about short-term trade flows between the US and South Africa. Looking at Container Trade Statistics (CTS) volumes by trade sector, it’s actually quite surprising that Maersk and MSC did not prioritize a USEC and US Gulf link with West Africa over the link with South Africa or look earlier at doing both. MSC has recognized that without direct competition, the diversion to serve West Africa in both directions is achievable while still being dominant in both trades. The CTS stats show that neither trade has experienced gangbuster growth in the last five years, but if you are the only operator with a direct service, you can be reasonably assured of grabbing a high market share and setting the tone for highly contributive rates. What is clear is that a USEC to South Africa service was on fragile ground even before trade tensions threatened erosion. The addition of West Africa, however, gives the service a hyper boost. If getting a dominant position in two direct trades on one service was not enough, there is another new layer of opportunity for MSC by adding and connecting regions. <h3>Owned hubs and double-dipping delight </h3>By putting West Africa in the rotation, MSC has added intra-Africa capability. As the ships will be light coming out of South Africa, the strong trade to West Africa is an excellent chance to use dead space and provide another stream of revenue to the service. The fact that MSC can use hubs in this process that it partially or completely owns — Freeport, San Pedro and Lome — and use accompanying feeder systems to tap multiple local markets means that its widened products and costs are under its control. Meanwhile, spot rates being offered suggest that MSC is going to have a substantive premium — particularly in the US to South Africa lane in both directions and with West Africa providing so much extra critical mass. This deployment is not just a case of MSC having more ship muscle to flex than others. It’s also about network planning dexterity and having a portfolio of well-positioned hubs that enable local and connecting cargoes to be maximized without congestion. It would be foolish to extrapolate the road ahead from one new service, but the fact that MSC brings so many things to bear and can move so quickly implies that others will have to be at the top of their game to compete. Jeremy Masters is managing director of Shipping Masters. Contact him at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

The playing field is not even when pursuing new route opportunities in north-south trades. The ever-increasing scale of the biggest players simply means that they have more assets to deploy. Raids on the NOO (non-operating owner) second-hand fleet by Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) and CMA CGM in the 2000- to 8000-TEU ship size category and the consequent squeeze on ships available in the charter market (causing high rates on what is available) mean that attractive propositions in developing trades end up on the back burner for carriers requiring charter tonnage. This, of course, could change quite rapidly if big ship oversupply results in cascading and the return of smaller tonnage to NOOs. Right now, however, the only option for many carriers is to move ships off a weak trade and redeploy them to a promising one. This is not an easy decision, but waiting for the charter market to change is not a solution as it will change for everybody at the same time. Meantime, opportunities come and go. Developing trades is a particular challenge as volume growth is volatile, imbalances can be big, and these trades are easier to tip into oversupply if a sizeable capacity injection is made. US to West and South Africa An interesting case study of punching power and nimbleness is the recent move by MSC to introduce a new stand-alone service connecting the US with West and South Africa. With Maersk’s withdrawal from the joint service with MSC connecting the US East Coast and Freeport (and thus the US Gulf) with South Africa, it’s not a surprise that MSC would step up to be the only direct operator in the trade. There may be hiccups at the political level, but trade patterns tend to be more robust than the short-term programs of any government. MSC — never slow to identify an opportunity — has grabbed Maersk’s withdrawal as a gift, not only to dominate one trade but also take pole position in another by adding West Africa in the rotation in both directions. Thus, MSC ties in critical mass and alleviates any concern about short-term trade flows between the US and South Africa. Looking at Container Trade Statistics (CTS) volumes by trade sector, it’s actually quite surprising that Maersk and MSC did not prioritize a USEC and US Gulf link with West Africa over the link with South Africa or look earlier at doing both. MSC has recognized that without direct competition, the diversion to serve West Africa in both directions is achievable while still being dominant in both trades. The CTS stats show that neither trade has experienced gangbuster growth in the last five years, but if you are the only operator with a direct service, you can be reasonably assured of grabbing a high market share and setting the tone for highly contributive rates. What is clear is that a USEC to South Africa service was on fragile ground even before trade tensions threatened erosion. The addition of West Africa, however, gives the service a hyper boost. If getting a dominant position in two direct trades on one service was not enough, there is another new layer of opportunity for MSC by adding and connecting regions. Owned hubs and double-dipping delight By putting West Africa in the rotation, MSC has added intra-Africa capability. As the ships will be light coming out of South Africa, the strong trade to West Africa is an excellent chance to use dead space and provide another stream of revenue to the service. The fact that MSC can use hubs in this process that it partially or completely owns — Freeport, San Pedro and Lome — and use accompanying feeder systems to tap multiple local markets means that its widened products and costs are under its control. Meanwhile, spot rates being offered suggest that MSC is going to have a substantive premium — particularly in the US to South Africa lane in both directions and with West Africa providing so much extra critical mass. This deployment is not just a case of MSC having more ship muscle to flex than others. It’s also about network planning dexterity and having a portfolio of well-positioned hubs that enable local and connecting cargoes to be maximized without congestion. It would be foolish to extrapolate the road ahead from one new service, but the fact that MSC brings so many things to bear and can move so quickly implies that others will have to be at the top of their game to compete. Jeremy Masters is managing director of Shipping Masters. Contact him at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

MSC flexing its north-south muscle, particularly on US-Africa trade

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility. </div>

The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess, but rather those who know — and knowing begins with visibility.

<div class="phx-topic">The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. <h3>Technology can ease challenges </h3>The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at <a href="mailto:northw@shiplify.com">northw@shiplify.com</a>. Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at <a href="mailto:bart@bartdemuynck.com">bart@bartdemuynck.com</a>. </div>

The US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector stands at a critical crossroads. Faced with depressed demand, high operating costs, economic uncertainty and rising customer expectations, LTL carriers, brokers and shippers are under mounting pressure to do more with less. Efficiency, accuracy and transparency have never been more vital. Even as some aspects of LTL have modernized, persistent blind spots still drain time, revenue and customer satisfaction. Accessorial management and location visibility remain at the heart of operational performance and profitability in the LTL sector, and companies must solve these challenges to thrive in this freight environment. Accessorial charges are often treated as the fine print of freight, but their financial impact is anything but small. These additional fees, covering services such as liftgate usage, residential delivery, limited-access sites and inside delivery are frequently not accounted for until after a delivery is completed. At that point, shippers receive unexpected invoices, brokers scramble to reconcile charges, and carriers are left fielding disputes that strain valuable relationships and negatively impact their bottom line. Without an accurate, upfront method of identifying potential accessorials, companies lose control over cost predictability. This unpredictability does more than damage budgets. It undermines long-term rate negotiations and muddies performance metrics such as cost per shipment and gross margin. Billing disputes over accessorials can also slow down cash flow and stretch out time-to-payment cycles. As the logistics sector faces tighter margins and rising customer expectations, these seemingly minor charges can add up to major financial consequences. Location data is another underestimated factor that directly impacts LTL performance. While most transportation management systems (TMSs) offer basic shipment tracking, they often lack granular location insights. This includes data points such as whether a site is residential or commercial, whether there is dock access or a forklift onsite, or if the delivery site has limited hours or requires specialized entry. These details may seem minor, but their absence leads to service mismatches, re-delivery attempts, extended dwell times and more accessorial charges. For example, failing to flag a residential delivery that requires a liftgate can result in a surprise fee and an unhappy customer. A shipment bound for a military base or an airport without the right equipment or credentials can create costly delays and failed deliveries. Inaccurate or incomplete location information does more than increase costs — it erodes operational agility. Technology can ease challenges The good news is that technology now exists to solve these challenges at scale. New platforms that leverage AI, machine learning and geospatial data are transforming how logistics professionals manage LTL freight. These tools can identify potential accessorial charges before the freight is tendered, analyze delivery site characteristics in real time and deliver a unified accessorial view across all stakeholders. By automating accessorial identification during order entry and integrating precise location attributes such as limited access, loading dock availability, forklifts on site or gated entry, these platforms allow teams to move from reactive firefighting to proactive planning. With real-time alerts and API integrations that connect directly into a TMS, shippers, brokers and carriers can operate from a shared source of accessorial truth. The impact of smarter accessorial identification and location visibility delivers measurable results. Companies that have adopted these advanced solutions have reported a 75% reduction in unexpected accessorial fees, leading to cleaner invoices and faster dispute resolution. Customers have also seen improved on-time in-full (OTIF) performance, driving higher customer satisfaction and stronger service-level agreement (SLA) compliance. This shift is particularly timely in 2025, as the LTL industry grapples with economic volatility, rising operating costs and major classification changes. Freight volumes are inconsistent, carriers are prioritizing profitability over market share, and the new National Motor Freight Traffic Association density-based classification system is forcing shippers to re-evaluate how they package and price freight. In this environment, hidden costs such as accessorials and inefficiencies tied to poor location visibility can erode already thin margins. With shifting demand, cost inflation and operational headwinds, the ability to forecast costs, identify risks and plan accordingly has become a key competitive advantage. In the past, accessorial management and granular location visibility may have been viewed as optional enhancements. Today, they are essential for any company that relies on LTL shipping as a core part of its logistics strategy. When customer expectations are rising and disruptions are the new norm, having visibility into every shipment detail and every delivery site is table stakes. The LTL world of 2025 does not reward those who guess. It rewards those who know, and knowing begins with visibility. North Winship is president of Shiplify. Contact him at northw@shiplify.com . Bart De Muynck is a strategic advisor for Drewry. Contact him at bart@bartdemuynck.com .

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

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

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

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

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

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Asia to North Europe

Asia to Mediterranean

eeSea collects and centralizes liner network data from dozens of public sources including carriers’ vessel tracking portals, long-term schedules, customer advisories, port and terminal operator schedules, and pilot schedules. These disparate datasets are continually inspected, cleaned, and carefully structured. eeSea synthesizes this refined public data with AIS positions from a third-party provider and its datasets spanning schedule reliability, transit times, trade capacity evolution, and 60-day vessel forecasts. Ships are deemed late if they are one calendar day or late than scheduled. [eeSea](https://www.eesea.com)

Asia to North Europe and Mediterranean ocean reliability (eeSea)

On-Time Performance Asia to Northern Europe and Mediterranean (eeSea) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The absence of a framework on how global shipping can pass on the higher operating costs of using low- or zero-emission fuels to cargo owners will likely stall investment in the sector. </div>

The absence of a framework on how global shipping can pass on the higher operating costs of using low- or zero-emission fuels to cargo owners will likely stall investment in the sector.

<div class="phx-topic">The most optimistic view of global maritime regulators punting on a new net-zero emissions framework is that efforts to derail it completely were avoided. For most in the shipping industry, however, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) one-year delay is viewed as a major missed opportunity to give the investment community the certainty it needs to fund the transition to net-zero fuels. The Friday motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. In the interim, member states will continue to work toward consensus on the decarbonization plans, but achieving the emissions-cutting targets agreed under the revised IMO greenhouse gas (GHG) strategy in 2023 will now be under pressure. The IMO’s targets include at least a 20% — striving for 30% — reduction in emissions by 2030 and at least a 70%, striving for 80%, reduction by 2040 compared with 2008 levels. The ultimate goal is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. But critics argue that the absence of a framework on how global shipping can pass on to cargo owners the higher operating costs of using low- or zero-emission fuels will likely stall investment in shipbuilding and in scaling up production of alternative fuels to replace conventional, heavy-emission bunkers. They fear that with no global pricing mechanism, there is likely to emerge a host of local carbon pricing initiatives that will be difficult for carriers to navigate. The United States’ willingness to threaten IMO member states voting against White House efforts to water down the regulations brings a challenge that wasn’t present in July 2023 when the IMO’s revised GHG strategy was agreed. The US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. It was what triggered the extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. President Donald Trump even weighed in on his Truth Social media platform with a post last week saying, “the US will not stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. Stand with the US and vote NO in London...!” <h3>States swayed by US threats </h3>The US was supported in its opposition to the measures by petrostates Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela, with Singapore raising the idea that the regulation be delayed and Saudi Arabia calling for the vote. Pressure from the US saw Liberia, the world’s largest ship registry with 16% of global tonnage, and Bahamas, home to almost 4% of global tonnage, reversing their support for the framework. Not everyone was cowed by the US threats, particularly the tiny Pacific Island states that are most vulnerable to the climate change dismissed as a hoax by Trump. “Don’t pretend that the Pacific was voiceless. We were ignored, bullied, threatened, cornered, sidelined and harassed. But we stood tall,” Marshall Islands Ambassador Albon Ishoda <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/albon-ishoda-384472333/recent-activity/all/">wrote in a LinkedIn post</a>. “When you mention those large countries that fought for or against the framework, don’t forget that it was the Pacific Island countries and Seychelles that gave the hardest miles and took the hardest hit,” Ishoda wrote. “A year delay is a year of more devastation and displacement for our communities that have nothing to do with this catastrophe. We don’t have the luxury of time.” There are concerns that the US considers the delay in adopting IMO decarbonization plans as a win and will use the time between now and next October to build further opposition against the net-zero framework, potentially killing the regulation. There are also concerns that the delay is a win for liquefied natural gas (LNG) that will continue to be the fuel of choice across shipping sectors. Reaction to the IMO vote to adjourn the attempted adoption of the net-zero framework for a year has been loud and predominantly negative, particularly concerning the enormous investment required to decarbonize the maritime industry. The Global Maritime Forum has estimated that achieving a 50% reduction in shipping's GHG emissions by 2050 will require investment of $1 trillion to $1.4 trillion between 2030 and 2050. If full decarbonization is the goal, the total could be as high as $1.9 trillion. “From an economic standpoint, introducing carbon pricing is essential to level the playing field with sustainable fuels, which are currently not economically viable,” said Rico Luman, senior economist for transport and logistics at global bank ING. “Regardless of the timing, a pricing mechanism will eventually be necessary to drive progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, also as it helps funding green investments,” Luman noted. <h3>Delay puts targets under pressure </h3>It was a sentiment repeated time and again as the reaction rolled in following the Friday afternoon vote. “The industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector, in line with the goals set out in the IMO greenhouse gas strategy,” said Thomas Kazakos, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping. Kazakos said the framework would have created the first global carbon pricing mechanism for any industrial sector, with the aim of delivering a clear path for shipping’s transition to net zero. The delay means meeting the IMO’s decarbonization targets has been made more difficult, Luman told the Journal of Commerce. “The current timeline needs to be reassessed, as the projected CO₂ reductions by 2030 already fall short of earlier ambitions,” he said. “As a result, achieving the 2040 and 2050 targets set out in the IMO’s net-zero strategy is becoming increasingly challenging — particularly given the long investment horizons typical in the shipping industry.” Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, agreed, calling Friday’s adjournment “a disappointing setback for shipping” that will make delivery of maritime decarbonization targets even more challenging. Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, said the main container carriers were unlikely to stray from their current newbuilding path, at least for now. “But it will make it more difficult to convince ... investors to come in hard on green fuel production with the new uncertainty,” <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/larsjensenvespuccimaritime/recent-activity/all/">Jensen wrote in a LinkedIn post</a> Monday. “In such an environment, LNG just got another improvement in its relative competitiveness versus the fully green fuels.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The most optimistic view of global maritime regulators punting on a new net-zero emissions framework is that efforts to derail it completely were avoided. For most in the shipping industry, however, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) one-year delay is viewed as a major missed opportunity to give the investment community the certainty it needs to fund the transition to net-zero fuels. The Friday motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. In the interim, member states will continue to work toward consensus on the decarbonization plans, but achieving the emissions-cutting targets agreed under the revised IMO greenhouse gas (GHG) strategy in 2023 will now be under pressure. The IMO’s targets include at least a 20% — striving for 30% — reduction in emissions by 2030 and at least a 70%, striving for 80%, reduction by 2040 compared with 2008 levels. The ultimate goal is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. But critics argue that the absence of a framework on how global shipping can pass on to cargo owners the higher operating costs of using low- or zero-emission fuels will likely stall investment in shipbuilding and in scaling up production of alternative fuels to replace conventional, heavy-emission bunkers. They fear that with no global pricing mechanism, there is likely to emerge a host of local carbon pricing initiatives that will be difficult for carriers to navigate. The United States’ willingness to threaten IMO member states voting against White House efforts to water down the regulations brings a challenge that wasn’t present in July 2023 when the IMO’s revised GHG strategy was agreed. The US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. It was what triggered the extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. President Donald Trump even weighed in on his Truth Social media platform with a post last week saying, “the US will not stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. Stand with the US and vote NO in London...!” States swayed by US threats The US was supported in its opposition to the measures by petrostates Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela, with Singapore raising the idea that the regulation be delayed and Saudi Arabia calling for the vote. Pressure from the US saw Liberia, the world’s largest ship registry with 16% of global tonnage, and Bahamas, home to almost 4% of global tonnage, reversing their support for the framework. Not everyone was cowed by the US threats, particularly the tiny Pacific Island states that are most vulnerable to the climate change dismissed as a hoax by Trump. “Don’t pretend that the Pacific was voiceless. We were ignored, bullied, threatened, cornered, sidelined and harassed. But we stood tall,” Marshall Islands Ambassador Albon Ishoda wrote in a LinkedIn post . “When you mention those large countries that fought for or against the framework, don’t forget that it was the Pacific Island countries and Seychelles that gave the hardest miles and took the hardest hit,” Ishoda wrote. “A year delay is a year of more devastation and displacement for our communities that have nothing to do with this catastrophe. We don’t have the luxury of time.” There are concerns that the US considers the delay in adopting IMO decarbonization plans as a win and will use the time between now and next October to build further opposition against the net-zero framework, potentially killing the regulation. There are also concerns that the delay is a win for liquefied natural gas (LNG) that will continue to be the fuel of choice across shipping sectors. Reaction to the IMO vote to adjourn the attempted adoption of the net-zero framework for a year has been loud and predominantly negative, particularly concerning the enormous investment required to decarbonize the maritime industry. The Global Maritime Forum has estimated that achieving a 50% reduction in shipping's GHG emissions by 2050 will require investment of $1 trillion to $1.4 trillion between 2030 and 2050. If full decarbonization is the goal, the total could be as high as $1.9 trillion. “From an economic standpoint, introducing carbon pricing is essential to level the playing field with sustainable fuels, which are currently not economically viable,” said Rico Luman, senior economist for transport and logistics at global bank ING. “Regardless of the timing, a pricing mechanism will eventually be necessary to drive progress in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, also as it helps funding green investments,” Luman noted. Delay puts targets under pressure It was a sentiment repeated time and again as the reaction rolled in following the Friday afternoon vote. “The industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector, in line with the goals set out in the IMO greenhouse gas strategy,” said Thomas Kazakos, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping. Kazakos said the framework would have created the first global carbon pricing mechanism for any industrial sector, with the aim of delivering a clear path for shipping’s transition to net zero. The delay means meeting the IMO’s decarbonization targets has been made more difficult, Luman told the Journal of Commerce. “The current timeline needs to be reassessed, as the projected CO₂ reductions by 2030 already fall short of earlier ambitions,” he said. “As a result, achieving the 2040 and 2050 targets set out in the IMO’s net-zero strategy is becoming increasingly challenging — particularly given the long investment horizons typical in the shipping industry.” Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, agreed, calling Friday’s adjournment “a disappointing setback for shipping” that will make delivery of maritime decarbonization targets even more challenging. Lars Jensen, CEO of Vespucci Maritime and a Journal of Commerce contributor, said the main container carriers were unlikely to stray from their current newbuilding path, at least for now. “But it will make it more difficult to convince ... investors to come in hard on green fuel production with the new uncertainty,” Jensen wrote in a LinkedIn post Monday. “In such an environment, LNG just got another improvement in its relative competitiveness versus the fully green fuels.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Delay in IMO decarbonization plans robs green fuel investors of certainty

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But freighter operators were prepared for the frontloading, and no capacity shortages are being reported on China-US routes, according to Tiaca.</div>

But freighter operators were prepared for the frontloading, and no capacity shortages are being reported on China-US routes, according to Tiaca.

<div class="phx-topic">Air freight demand on the trans-Pacific has risen sharply as shippers advance orders following a threat by President Donald Trump to impose an additional 100% tariff on Chinese goods from Nov. 1. There has been no official announcement on the new tariff levels announced by the White House on Oct. 10 in response to Beijing’s plan to raise export controls on rare earth minerals, a crucial commodity primarily used in high-tech, renewables and defense industries. Still, jittery US importers were taking no chances, and with little time to frontload trans-Pacific ocean freight, they have turned to air cargo. “Many shippers are rushing to get their airfreight shipments into the US prior to Nov. 1 to beat the additional 100% tariffs that were announced recently,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of 365 Logistics. “But I think this is a negotiating tactic to get China to review its recent regulations on the export of rare earth minerals,” he added. Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Dimerco Express Group, said air freight volume booked for this week into the US was “surging” ahead of the potential tariffs from Nov. 1. The Oct. 10 tariff announcement saw an initial 19% increase in rates compared with the previous week to $5.30 per kilogram, but rates have remained mostly flat since then, according to Freightos. Analysts expect to have a better idea of how rising demand is impacting pricing later this week. One factor preventing rates from spiking despite the rising demand is the available air freight capacity on the trans-Pacific. Glyn Hughes, director general of The International Air Cargo Association (Tiaca), said freighter operators were prepared for the frontloading and there were no capacity shortages on China-US routes. “This is the third round of such actions so to some degree it was expected and carriers were able to mobilize capacity on the trans-Pacific trade lane,” he told the Journal of Commerce Monday. In the week after the tariff announcement, available air freight capacity on China-US routes increased 24% compared with the previous week, according to data from air cargo analyst Rotate. Capacity deployed on the routes is currently up 21% year over year. Hughes said maritime supply chains were longer and slower to respond to deferred or implemented tariff decisions, with shippers preferring to take a “wait and see” approach and loading urgent consignments by air as required. “Overall, though, these constant frontloading spikes in capacity demand do not provide for a consistent operational environment conducive to rate stability and regularized network connectivity,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Air freight demand on the trans-Pacific has risen sharply as shippers advance orders following a threat by President Donald Trump to impose an additional 100% tariff on Chinese goods from Nov. 1. There has been no official announcement on the new tariff levels announced by the White House on Oct. 10 in response to Beijing’s plan to raise export controls on rare earth minerals, a crucial commodity primarily used in high-tech, renewables and defense industries. Still, jittery US importers were taking no chances, and with little time to frontload trans-Pacific ocean freight, they have turned to air cargo. “Many shippers are rushing to get their airfreight shipments into the US prior to Nov. 1 to beat the additional 100% tariffs that were announced recently,” said Sanjay Tejwani, CEO of 365 Logistics. “But I think this is a negotiating tactic to get China to review its recent regulations on the export of rare earth minerals,” he added. Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Dimerco Express Group, said air freight volume booked for this week into the US was “surging” ahead of the potential tariffs from Nov. 1. The Oct. 10 tariff announcement saw an initial 19% increase in rates compared with the previous week to $5.30 per kilogram, but rates have remained mostly flat since then, according to Freightos. Analysts expect to have a better idea of how rising demand is impacting pricing later this week. One factor preventing rates from spiking despite the rising demand is the available air freight capacity on the trans-Pacific. Glyn Hughes, director general of The International Air Cargo Association (Tiaca), said freighter operators were prepared for the frontloading and there were no capacity shortages on China-US routes. “This is the third round of such actions so to some degree it was expected and carriers were able to mobilize capacity on the trans-Pacific trade lane,” he told the Journal of Commerce Monday. In the week after the tariff announcement, available air freight capacity on China-US routes increased 24% compared with the previous week, according to data from air cargo analyst Rotate. Capacity deployed on the routes is currently up 21% year over year. Hughes said maritime supply chains were longer and slower to respond to deferred or implemented tariff decisions, with shippers preferring to take a “wait and see” approach and loading urgent consignments by air as required. “Overall, though, these constant frontloading spikes in capacity demand do not provide for a consistent operational environment conducive to rate stability and regularized network connectivity,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

China air freight demand, rates surge on new 100% US tariff

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. </div>

Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court.

<div class="phx-topic">The drayage industry is hoping maritime regulators will come out of the US government shutdown and clarify rulemaking aimed at shielding them from unfounded demurrage charges for the late return or retrieval of containers at marine terminals. In the meantime, a former Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) member is encouraging truckers and terminal operators to continue filing their concerns with the appropriate federal agencies, knowing that responses may be late in coming. Drayage operators’ concerns center on the impact of the DC Court of Appeals in late September <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/appeals-court-strikes-down-fmcs-detention-and-demurrage-billing-rule-6086773">striking down part of an FMC rulemaking</a> to clarify who is responsible for charges on the delayed retrieval and return of containers to marine terminals. Ocean carriers, truckers and terminal operators had anticipated that the FMC would either challenge the court’s decision or rewrite the rule to address the issues the court had with it. The agency then shut down on Oct. 1 and work has since stopped. “Obviously we are disappointed by the court’s ruling,” Jon Eisen, director, Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference of the American Trucking Associations, told the Journal of Commerce. “How this will play out I’m not sure,” he said. The FMC rule that was issued in February 2024 had required more transparent invoicing of demurrage and detention charges. It had set timelines for billing and limited which parties involved in container haulage could be charged for the delayed retrieval and return of containers. The court said the FMC’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.” Although the FMC remains closed, that should not discourage truckers, terminal operators or other stakeholders that operate under the agency’s regulations from continuing to file their concerns with the FMC, said Carl Bentzel, a former FMC commissioner who is now president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers. Container terminals in Los Angeles-Long Beach have remained fluid since the government shutdown. “It’s business as usual. Cargo is flowing nicely,” said Alan McCorkle, president of Yusen Terminals in Los Angeles. Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The drayage industry is hoping maritime regulators will come out of the US government shutdown and clarify rulemaking aimed at shielding them from unfounded demurrage charges for the late return or retrieval of containers at marine terminals. In the meantime, a former Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) member is encouraging truckers and terminal operators to continue filing their concerns with the appropriate federal agencies, knowing that responses may be late in coming. Drayage operators’ concerns center on the impact of the DC Court of Appeals in late September striking down part of an FMC rulemaking to clarify who is responsible for charges on the delayed retrieval and return of containers to marine terminals. Ocean carriers, truckers and terminal operators had anticipated that the FMC would either challenge the court’s decision or rewrite the rule to address the issues the court had with it. The agency then shut down on Oct. 1 and work has since stopped. “Obviously we are disappointed by the court’s ruling,” Jon Eisen, director, Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference of the American Trucking Associations, told the Journal of Commerce. “How this will play out I’m not sure,” he said. The FMC rule that was issued in February 2024 had required more transparent invoicing of demurrage and detention charges. It had set timelines for billing and limited which parties involved in container haulage could be charged for the delayed retrieval and return of containers. The court said the FMC’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.” Although the FMC remains closed, that should not discourage truckers, terminal operators or other stakeholders that operate under the agency’s regulations from continuing to file their concerns with the FMC, said Carl Bentzel, a former FMC commissioner who is now president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers. Container terminals in Los Angeles-Long Beach have remained fluid since the government shutdown. “It’s business as usual. Cargo is flowing nicely,” said Alan McCorkle, president of Yusen Terminals in Los Angeles. Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Drayage industry hopes for FMC relief on demurrage billing

Use code GTW595 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 FSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

FALL SALE

Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code FSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

FALL SALE: Use code FSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

FALL SALE: Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE: Use codeFSW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

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

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

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

The only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Tender season is a time when shippers traditionally look to switch forwarders, so signing them to new contracts will be the real test of the DSV-DB Schenker integration, DSV CFO Michael Ebbe says.</div>

Tender season is a time when shippers traditionally look to switch forwarders, so signing them to new contracts will be the real test of the DSV-DB Schenker integration, DSV CFO Michael Ebbe says.

<div class="phx-topic">DSV said Thursday it is stepping up efforts to retain its customer base amid the integration of DB Schenker into its global network as ocean tender season approaches and rival Kuehne + Nagel begins to circle. Cargo owners will soon begin to negotiate Asia–Europe contracts for next year, with the annual service contract talks on the trans-Pacific heating up in March. It is a time when shippers traditionally switch forwarders, so signing them to new contracts will be the real test of the DSV-DB Schenker integration, according to DSV CFO Michael Ebbe. “All the competition is focusing on us right now, but we are the market leaders, and we also did that when we were chasing,” Ebbe told analysts during a third-quarter earnings call. “We'd see quite some attrition by now in a normal integration, which we're not seeing, but the tender season will be the test.” At $16.25 billion, DB Schenker is Denmark-based DSV’s largest acquisition by a huge margin, after having previously taken over <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/size-equals-value-in-fragmented-market-dsvs-andersen-5248808">Agility’s Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) in 2021 for $4.2 billion</a>, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/newly-combined-dsv-panalpina-targets-trans-pacific-trade-5226703">Panalpina in 2019 for $4.6 billion</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dsv-buys-uti-for-135-billion-5205537">UTi in 2015 for $1.35 billion</a>. While exact figures are not available, DSV has previously acknowledged that following the Panalpina and GIL acquisitions, there were some large customer losses to rivals. “Of the customers that we have longer-term agreements with, it's going to come when we have the freight negotiations, basically for the renewal of the contracts, and that's typically happening into the new year,” Ebbe said. “We must make it through the tender season, and then we can really start to focus on the growth.” But also waiting for ocean tender season is rival Kuehne + Nagel, and the Swiss-based forwarder claimed during its own Q3 call Thursday to have already made inroads into DSV’s air freight customer base. “I can confirm we have taken advantage of that merger in air freight, and it has benefited us,” K + N CEO Stefan Paul told analysts. Paul said ocean freight came with two cargo request-for-quotation (RFQ) cycles while air freight shippers decided on a monthly or quarterly basis. “The share of wallet has moved much quicker on the air freight business where the purchasing guidance is more obvious than in sea freight, but that should come in the next RFQ cycle,” he said. <h3>Global headwinds hit forwarder results </h3>Both DSV and Kuehne + Nagel in their Q3 results highlighted significant global headwinds fanned by US tariffs and geopolitics. Boosted by the DB Schenker business, DSV’s Q3 revenue reached $11.7 billion, up 63% year over year, while gross profit increased 76% to $3 billion. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were up 23% at $842 million, while net profit of $335 million was down 24% year over year. Volume became increasingly volatile during the third quarter, particularly in ocean freight. Although overall volume was up 52% at just over 1 million TEUs, 404,000 TEUs of that was contributed by DB Schenker. Organic volume that excluded Schenker was down 5% year over year. In air freight, the volume grew 64% in the third quarter to 579,000 metric tons, with DB Schenker contributing 232,000 metric tons. Organic volume was flat. DSV reiterated that expected synergies from DB Schenker would be about $1.4 billion by the end of 2028, with an expected financial cost of about $124 million for the full-year 2025 based on the assumption that 30% of the integration will be completed by year-end. DSV has lowered the top range of its full-year profit expectation from $3.34 billion to $3.19 billion but maintained its lower EBIT level at $3.05 billion. <h3>K + N to slash jobs as yield pressure grows </h3>Kuehne + Nagel also lowered its EBIT forecast, and now expects profit of $1.6 billion in 2025, down from the previous expectation of just over $2 billion. The forwarder said overcapacity in the ocean trade, negative currency effects and a drop in volume in the third quarter were placing heavy pressure on air and ocean yields. Third-quarter revenue of $7.6 billion was down 7% year over year, EBIT of $358 million declined 37% and net profit was down 36% at $259 million. K + N handled 1.1 million TEUs in the third quarter, flat compared with the same period last year. But the excess ocean capacity dragged down gross profit per TEU by 15% to $688. In air freight, the forwarder handled 564,000 metric tons, up 7% year over year, although gross profit per 100 kilograms fell 13% to $90. Kuehne + Nagel aims to mitigate its declining profitability through cost cuts of $251 million that will see between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs lost as the forwarder increases automation and digitalization across its global network. “Challenging external factors are forcing us to sustainably and permanently improve our efficiency and performance culture,” Paul noted. “With the launch of group-wide cost reduction measures, we are now taking action to safeguard our cost base.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

DSV said Thursday it is stepping up efforts to retain its customer base amid the integration of DB Schenker into its global network as ocean tender season approaches and rival Kuehne + Nagel begins to circle. Cargo owners will soon begin to negotiate Asia–Europe contracts for next year, with the annual service contract talks on the trans-Pacific heating up in March. It is a time when shippers traditionally switch forwarders, so signing them to new contracts will be the real test of the DSV-DB Schenker integration, according to DSV CFO Michael Ebbe. “All the competition is focusing on us right now, but we are the market leaders, and we also did that when we were chasing,” Ebbe told analysts during a third-quarter earnings call. “We'd see quite some attrition by now in a normal integration, which we're not seeing, but the tender season will be the test.” At $16.25 billion, DB Schenker is Denmark-based DSV’s largest acquisition by a huge margin, after having previously taken over Agility’s Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) in 2021 for $4.2 billion , Panalpina in 2019 for $4.6 billion and UTi in 2015 for $1.35 billion . While exact figures are not available, DSV has previously acknowledged that following the Panalpina and GIL acquisitions, there were some large customer losses to rivals. “Of the customers that we have longer-term agreements with, it's going to come when we have the freight negotiations, basically for the renewal of the contracts, and that's typically happening into the new year,” Ebbe said. “We must make it through the tender season, and then we can really start to focus on the growth.” But also waiting for ocean tender season is rival Kuehne + Nagel, and the Swiss-based forwarder claimed during its own Q3 call Thursday to have already made inroads into DSV’s air freight customer base. “I can confirm we have taken advantage of that merger in air freight, and it has benefited us,” K + N CEO Stefan Paul told analysts. Paul said ocean freight came with two cargo request-for-quotation (RFQ) cycles while air freight shippers decided on a monthly or quarterly basis. “The share of wallet has moved much quicker on the air freight business where the purchasing guidance is more obvious than in sea freight, but that should come in the next RFQ cycle,” he said. Global headwinds hit forwarder results Both DSV and Kuehne + Nagel in their Q3 results highlighted significant global headwinds fanned by US tariffs and geopolitics. Boosted by the DB Schenker business, DSV’s Q3 revenue reached $11.7 billion, up 63% year over year, while gross profit increased 76% to $3 billion. Earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were up 23% at $842 million, while net profit of $335 million was down 24% year over year. Volume became increasingly volatile during the third quarter, particularly in ocean freight. Although overall volume was up 52% at just over 1 million TEUs, 404,000 TEUs of that was contributed by DB Schenker. Organic volume that excluded Schenker was down 5% year over year. In air freight, the volume grew 64% in the third quarter to 579,000 metric tons, with DB Schenker contributing 232,000 metric tons. Organic volume was flat. DSV reiterated that expected synergies from DB Schenker would be about $1.4 billion by the end of 2028, with an expected financial cost of about $124 million for the full-year 2025 based on the assumption that 30% of the integration will be completed by year-end. DSV has lowered the top range of its full-year profit expectation from $3.34 billion to $3.19 billion but maintained its lower EBIT level at $3.05 billion. K + N to slash jobs as yield pressure grows Kuehne + Nagel also lowered its EBIT forecast, and now expects profit of $1.6 billion in 2025, down from the previous expectation of just over $2 billion. The forwarder said overcapacity in the ocean trade, negative currency effects and a drop in volume in the third quarter were placing heavy pressure on air and ocean yields. Third-quarter revenue of $7.6 billion was down 7% year over year, EBIT of $358 million declined 37% and net profit was down 36% at $259 million. K + N handled 1.1 million TEUs in the third quarter, flat compared with the same period last year. But the excess ocean capacity dragged down gross profit per TEU by 15% to $688. In air freight, the forwarder handled 564,000 metric tons, up 7% year over year, although gross profit per 100 kilograms fell 13% to $90. Kuehne + Nagel aims to mitigate its declining profitability through cost cuts of $251 million that will see between 1,000 and 1,500 jobs lost as the forwarder increases automation and digitalization across its global network. “Challenging external factors are forcing us to sustainably and permanently improve our efficiency and performance culture,” Paul noted. “With the launch of group-wide cost reduction measures, we are now taking action to safeguard our cost base.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Shrinking capacity pushing up US reefer truck rates

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Delay in IMO decarbonization plans robs green fuel investors of certainty

China air freight demand, rates surge on new 100% US tariff

Drayage industry hopes for FMC relief on demurrage billing

Recent Commentary

Visibility transforming accessorial and location insights in LTL shipping

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Top 5 Most Read Stories