<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) is expected later this fall to announce the winning bid to run the Contrecoeur terminal. </div>

The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) is expected later this fall to announce the winning bid to run the Contrecoeur terminal.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">DP World is seeking to operate a long-planned, nearly C$6 billion container terminal in Montreal that the new Canadian government is backing amid its shift away from US trade dependence.The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) is expected later this fall to announce the winning bid to run the Contrecoeur terminal, which with an annual capacity of 1.15 million TEUs would increase Canda’s second largest container port by capacity 150%. DP World, which operates at Vancouver and Prince Rupert the first and third-largest ports in Canada respectively, <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-08-29/dp-world-vies-for-deal-to-run-montreal-port-championed-by-carney">confirmed to Bloomberg</a> that it was involved in project negotiations. Since the port failed to attract a bidder in 2021,the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/quebec-provides-new-funding-for-proposed-montreal-terminal-citing-us-trade-tensions-5947783">Contrecoeur project has received</a> C$130 from the Quebec provincial government and C$130 from Canada’s infrastructure bank for construction Prime Minister Mark Carney last week said that he was seeking to fast-track the Contrecoeur project and highlighted <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carney-has-fresh-opportunity-to-galvanize-canadian-shipping-industry-6047928">newly passed legislation streamlining regulatory</a> approval for major infrastructure projects. The project, which is located 43 miles downriver from legacy Montreal terminals along the St. Lawrence River, requires extensive dredging and shoring up portions of the waterway. The projected cost of the project has ballooned, with estimates just six years ago pegging construction at C$570 – a tenth of the current estimate.The MPA seeks to begin construction as early as October and open the facility in 2029. The authority in 2022 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/montreal-relaunches-search-process-for-contrecoeur-terminal-operator-5204826">sent bid invitations</a> to Axium Infrastructure Canada and Pomerleau Capital, Ports America Holdings, and Terminal Investment Limited, in which Mediterranean Shipping Co. owns a majority stake. The port originally planned to have the first phase of the project by 2024 and had identified three finalist but scrapped plans. DP World operates Centerm facility and solely operates at Prince Rupert and Port Saint John. Montreal’s four existing container terminals are operated by two companies, Montreal Gateway Terminals Partnership and Termont Montreal.</div>

DP World is seeking to operate a long-planned, nearly C$6 billion container terminal in Montreal that the new Canadian government is backing amid its shift away from US trade dependence. The Montreal Port Authority (MPA) is expected later this fall to announce the winning bid to run the Contrecoeur terminal, which with an annual capacity of 1.15 million TEUs would increase Canda’s second largest container port by capacity 150%. DP World, which operates at Vancouver and Prince Rupert the first and third-largest ports in Canada respectively, confirmed to Bloomberg that it was involved in project negotiations. Since the port failed to attract a bidder in 2021,the Contrecoeur project has received C$130 from the Quebec provincial government and C$130 from Canada’s infrastructure bank for construction Prime Minister Mark Carney last week said that he was seeking to fast-track the Contrecoeur project and highlighted newly passed legislation streamlining regulatory approval for major infrastructure projects. The project, which is located 43 miles downriver from legacy Montreal terminals along the St. Lawrence River, requires extensive dredging and shoring up portions of the waterway. The projected cost of the project has ballooned, with estimates just six years ago pegging construction at C$570 – a tenth of the current estimate. The MPA seeks to begin construction as early as October and open the facility in 2029. The authority in 2022 sent bid invitations to Axium Infrastructure Canada and Pomerleau Capital, Ports America Holdings, and Terminal Investment Limited, in which Mediterranean Shipping Co. owns a majority stake. The port originally planned to have the first phase of the project by 2024 and had identified three finalist but scrapped plans. DP World operates Centerm facility and solely operates at Prince Rupert and Port Saint John. Montreal’s four existing container terminals are operated by two companies, Montreal Gateway Terminals Partnership and Termont Montreal.

Marine terminals

North American ports

Port News

DP World aims to run Carney-backed Montreal terminal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Air cargo capacity deployed on Vietnam-US routes nearly doubled in August on a year over year basis. </div>

Air cargo capacity deployed on Vietnam-US routes nearly doubled in August on a year over year basis.

<div class="phx-topic">Air cargo carriers are swamping the skies with capacity from Vietnam to the United States and Europe to handle steadily rising demand for high-value products as electronics manufacturing shifts away from tariff-hit China. While air cargo volume data is not yet available for August, the huge demand on Vietnam’s export routes, particularly on the trans-Pacific, can be measured via the amount of air freight capacity deployed since the US tariffs on China were imposed in April. Data from air cargo analyst Rotate shows capacity deployed on Vietnam-US routes increased by 95% year over year in August to 2,400 tonnes. The capacity increase in the previous four months was even greater compared to last year as air cargo carriers injected freighters into Vietnam routes that were previously served indirectly. Rotate analyst Tim van Leeuwen said although most Vietnam trade was still carried indirectly via China, Hong Kong or other Asian hubs, the steep increase in direct capacity was a solid indicator of growth in the market. Capacity growth on Vietnam-Europe routes served mostly via the Middle East was pedestrian by comparison, rising 39% in August, 55% in July, 40% in June, 44% in May and increasing by 16% in April, according to Rotate. Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Taiwan-based Dimerco Express Group, said manufacturers diversifying their China operations over the past year in anticipation of US tariffs under President Donald Trump are now starting to produce finished goods for the US and European markets. “This is the first year the production lines that moved to Vietnam have started to deliver finished goods and we can expect a peak season to start in September from Vietnam outbound to the US and Europe,” Liu said. Van Leeuwen said US technology imports from Vietnam were up +91% in the first six months with the import of computers up 113%, driven by growth in laptops that reached 71,000 tonnes. He said the growth rate for headphones and earphones in the first six months was 318%. <h3>Laptop export boom </h3>Glyn Hughes, director general of The International Air Cargo Association (Tiaca), said electronics, and particularly laptops, have “dramatically increased” on Vietnam to US trade lanes. “We think the increase to Europe is then a spillover from the overall production shift from China to Vietnam,” he told the Journal of Commerce Monday. “We aren’t hearing that accessing capacity is a problem, which would indicate good planning by manufacturers and their forwarders.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="c92e1ad7-70ff-4275-9528-8f939a9ee052"></dynamic-object></div>A spokesperson for Kuehne + Nagel said Vietnam has emerged as a leading global air freight growth market, and the forwarder expected this trend to continue. “Kuehne + Nagel is seeing strong air cargo demand from Vietnam to the US, driven by high tech, electronics and semiconductors cargo,” the spokesperson said, adding that in support of the rapid growth in export volume, Kuehne + Nagel and its Asian subsidiary Apex were operating 14 self-managed flights per week from Vietnam to the US. The US imposed 20% tariffs on Vietnamese exports in July, significantly less that those threatened on China, but at the same time threatened to impose a 40% tariff on any <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trumps-vietnam-transshipment-tariff-puzzles-us-trade-community-6041482">exports “transshipped” via Vietnam</a>. The US estimates that up to 30% of goods shipped from Vietnam to the US is actually produced in China, but there is no data to support the claim. Still, the 40% tariff threat appears to be serving its purpose, according to Hughes. “I asked (Tiaca members) about transshipment via Vietnam, which doesn’t seem to be happening, so the threat of increased tariffs is stopping that activity,” he said. Liu said she was also not seeing any transshipment duties being imposed on Vietnamese exports. “Those products do not belong to transshipment cargo as the manufacturers are all based in Vietnam,” she told the Journal of Commerce. “Unless there is some specific regulation and definition for 'transshipment cargo,' at the current stage it looks fine.” <h3>Tariff uncertainty dogs China-US routes </h3>While Vietnam’s air cargo exports are booming, tariff uncertainty continues to suppress demand on China-US routes. International Air Transport Association (IATA) figures for July show volume on Asia-North America, a corridor that carries 24.4% of global volume, declined 1% year over year. “Most major trade lanes reported growth, with one significant exception: Asia–North America,” Willie Walsh, IATA director general, noted in his latest monthly update. “A sharp decline in e-commerce as the US de minimis exemptions on small shipments expired was likely offset by shippers frontloading goods in advance of rising tariffs for imports to the US,” he added. “August will likely reveal more clearly the impact of shifting US trade policies.” The Trump administration on May 2 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-volumes-fall-on-trans-pacific-as-us-de-minimis-changes-loom-5993599">eliminated the de minimis exemption for low-value imports from China</a>, and on May 29 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/postal-groups-cite-customs-compliance-issues-in-us-shipment-suspensions-6070276">removed the exemption for all countries</a>. While most of the industry attention was focused on developments in markets connected to the US, Walsh noted that “it is important to keep a broad perspective on the global network.” “A fifth of air cargo travels on the Europe–Asia trade lane, which marked 29 months of consecutive expansion with 13.5% year-over-year growth in July,” he said. Rotate data shows China-Europe air cargo capacity deployed increased by 20,000 tonnes in August to 129,800 tonnes. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Air cargo carriers are swamping the skies with capacity from Vietnam to the United States and Europe to handle steadily rising demand for high-value products as electronics manufacturing shifts away from tariff-hit China. While air cargo volume data is not yet available for August, the huge demand on Vietnam’s export routes, particularly on the trans-Pacific, can be measured via the amount of air freight capacity deployed since the US tariffs on China were imposed in April. Data from air cargo analyst Rotate shows capacity deployed on Vietnam-US routes increased by 95% year over year in August to 2,400 tonnes. The capacity increase in the previous four months was even greater compared to last year as air cargo carriers injected freighters into Vietnam routes that were previously served indirectly. Rotate analyst Tim van Leeuwen said although most Vietnam trade was still carried indirectly via China, Hong Kong or other Asian hubs, the steep increase in direct capacity was a solid indicator of growth in the market. Capacity growth on Vietnam-Europe routes served mostly via the Middle East was pedestrian by comparison, rising 39% in August, 55% in July, 40% in June, 44% in May and increasing by 16% in April, according to Rotate. Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Taiwan-based Dimerco Express Group, said manufacturers diversifying their China operations over the past year in anticipation of US tariffs under President Donald Trump are now starting to produce finished goods for the US and European markets. “This is the first year the production lines that moved to Vietnam have started to deliver finished goods and we can expect a peak season to start in September from Vietnam outbound to the US and Europe,” Liu said. Van Leeuwen said US technology imports from Vietnam were up +91% in the first six months with the import of computers up 113%, driven by growth in laptops that reached 71,000 tonnes. He said the growth rate for headphones and earphones in the first six months was 318%. Laptop export boom Glyn Hughes, director general of The International Air Cargo Association (Tiaca), said electronics, and particularly laptops, have “dramatically increased” on Vietnam to US trade lanes. “We think the increase to Europe is then a spillover from the overall production shift from China to Vietnam,” he told the Journal of Commerce Monday. “We aren’t hearing that accessing capacity is a problem, which would indicate good planning by manufacturers and their forwarders.” A spokesperson for Kuehne + Nagel said Vietnam has emerged as a leading global air freight growth market, and the forwarder expected this trend to continue. “Kuehne + Nagel is seeing strong air cargo demand from Vietnam to the US, driven by high tech, electronics and semiconductors cargo,” the spokesperson said, adding that in support of the rapid growth in export volume, Kuehne + Nagel and its Asian subsidiary Apex were operating 14 self-managed flights per week from Vietnam to the US. The US imposed 20% tariffs on Vietnamese exports in July, significantly less that those threatened on China, but at the same time threatened to impose a 40% tariff on any exports “transshipped” via Vietnam . The US estimates that up to 30% of goods shipped from Vietnam to the US is actually produced in China, but there is no data to support the claim. Still, the 40% tariff threat appears to be serving its purpose, according to Hughes. “I asked (Tiaca members) about transshipment via Vietnam, which doesn’t seem to be happening, so the threat of increased tariffs is stopping that activity,” he said. Liu said she was also not seeing any transshipment duties being imposed on Vietnamese exports. “Those products do not belong to transshipment cargo as the manufacturers are all based in Vietnam,” she told the Journal of Commerce. “Unless there is some specific regulation and definition for 'transshipment cargo,' at the current stage it looks fine.” Tariff uncertainty dogs China-US routes While Vietnam’s air cargo exports are booming, tariff uncertainty continues to suppress demand on China-US routes. International Air Transport Association (IATA) figures for July show volume on Asia-North America, a corridor that carries 24.4% of global volume, declined 1% year over year. “Most major trade lanes reported growth, with one significant exception: Asia–North America,” Willie Walsh, IATA director general, noted in his latest monthly update. “A sharp decline in e-commerce as the US de minimis exemptions on small shipments expired was likely offset by shippers frontloading goods in advance of rising tariffs for imports to the US,” he added. “August will likely reveal more clearly the impact of shifting US trade policies.” The Trump administration on May 2 eliminated the de minimis exemption for low-value imports from China , and on May 29 removed the exemption for all countries . While most of the industry attention was focused on developments in markets connected to the US, Walsh noted that “it is important to keep a broad perspective on the global network.” “A fifth of air cargo travels on the Europe–Asia trade lane, which marked 29 months of consecutive expansion with 13.5% year-over-year growth in July,” he said. Rotate data shows China-Europe air cargo capacity deployed increased by 20,000 tonnes in August to 129,800 tonnes. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

Vietnam air cargo export jump on weaker China demand

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

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

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

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

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

Maritime

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The four-year pacts with Hutchison Ports Australia and Victoria International Container Terminal were confirmed by the Maritime Union of Australia on Thursday.</div>

The four-year pacts with Hutchison Ports Australia and Victoria International Container Terminal were confirmed by the Maritime Union of Australia on Thursday.

<div class="phx-topic">Shipper groups in Australia are welcoming separate deals inked between two terminal operators and dockworkers, saying the agreements will bring a sustained period of industrial peace on the country’s waterfront after years of disruption. The four-year pacts with Hutchison Ports Australia and Victoria International Container Terminal were confirmed by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) on Thursday. Along with significant pay increases for workers, the agreements curtail the implementation of new technology systems. That includes a ban on automated equipment at Hutchison’s Sydney and Brisbane terminals and limits on the implementation and use of AI and other technologies at VICT in Melbourne without the agreement of the workforce. The MUA said the curbs on automation mean “no remote cranes, no driverless trucks, no job-destroying machines.” Tom Jensen, general manager for freight policy and operations at the Freight &amp; Trade Alliance (FTA), a shipper group, said the latest labor agreements and those reached earlier with other operators including DP World, should prevent any labor action at major terminals for the next four years. FTA members include Alibaba (Australia,) Caterpillar, Kmart and Target. “The industry is set for a rare period of stability across all container terminals through to 2028–29 — delivering much-needed certainty for importers, exporters, freight forwarders, customs brokers and logistics providers in a period of heightened geopolitical tensions and ongoing volatility in global shipping,” Jensen told the Journal of Commerce. Jensen, who also represents the Australian Peak Shippers Association (APSA), welcomed the settlements because they were achieved without protracted disputes and industrial action that characterized negotiations with other operators. DP World faced four months of strikes and limited working by stevedores at its terminals in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle before agreeing to a new labor pact in February 2024. Jensen said Hutchison wanted “a quick negotiation to avoid any disruption to the supply chain.” “Terminal operators appear to have taken a more proactive approach in recent negotiations, entering talks earlier than usual,” he said. <h3>Pay hikes, new jobs</h3>The MUA said the Hutchison deal includes a pay increase of 18.25% over four years for the 350 dockworkers employed at its terminals in Sydney and Brisbane. The agreement with VICT, owned by Philippines-headquartered International Container Terminal Services Inc (ICTSI), creates at least 46 new permanent jobs and includes a 46% pay increase for casual workers and cuts in average weekly hours, the MUA said. A Hutchison source said its agreement provides increased flexibility with labor resources and the availability to better match vessel arrivals at Sydney’s Port Botany and Brisbane while offering improved service to landside railroad and truck operators. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Shipper groups in Australia are welcoming separate deals inked between two terminal operators and dockworkers, saying the agreements will bring a sustained period of industrial peace on the country’s waterfront after years of disruption. The four-year pacts with Hutchison Ports Australia and Victoria International Container Terminal were confirmed by the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) on Thursday. Along with significant pay increases for workers, the agreements curtail the implementation of new technology systems. That includes a ban on automated equipment at Hutchison’s Sydney and Brisbane terminals and limits on the implementation and use of AI and other technologies at VICT in Melbourne without the agreement of the workforce. The MUA said the curbs on automation mean “no remote cranes, no driverless trucks, no job-destroying machines.” Tom Jensen, general manager for freight policy and operations at the Freight & Trade Alliance (FTA), a shipper group, said the latest labor agreements and those reached earlier with other operators including DP World, should prevent any labor action at major terminals for the next four years. FTA members include Alibaba (Australia,) Caterpillar, Kmart and Target. “The industry is set for a rare period of stability across all container terminals through to 2028–29 — delivering much-needed certainty for importers, exporters, freight forwarders, customs brokers and logistics providers in a period of heightened geopolitical tensions and ongoing volatility in global shipping,” Jensen told the Journal of Commerce. Jensen, who also represents the Australian Peak Shippers Association (APSA), welcomed the settlements because they were achieved without protracted disputes and industrial action that characterized negotiations with other operators. DP World faced four months of strikes and limited working by stevedores at its terminals in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Fremantle before agreeing to a new labor pact in February 2024. Jensen said Hutchison wanted “a quick negotiation to avoid any disruption to the supply chain.” “Terminal operators appear to have taken a more proactive approach in recent negotiations, entering talks earlier than usual,” he said. Pay hikes, new jobs The MUA said the Hutchison deal includes a pay increase of 18.25% over four years for the 350 dockworkers employed at its terminals in Sydney and Brisbane. The agreement with VICT, owned by Philippines-headquartered International Container Terminal Services Inc (ICTSI), creates at least 46 new permanent jobs and includes a 46% pay increase for casual workers and cuts in average weekly hours, the MUA said. A Hutchison source said its agreement provides increased flexibility with labor resources and the availability to better match vessel arrivals at Sydney’s Port Botany and Brisbane while offering improved service to landside railroad and truck operators. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

International ports

Longshore labor

Shipper groups say terminal deals will bring labor peace to Australia’s wharves

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Revamped energy priorities in the US and data-related industrial projects are driving out-of-gauge cargo demand.</div>

Revamped energy priorities in the US and data-related industrial projects are driving out-of-gauge cargo demand.

<div class="phx-topic">Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) companies are riding a wave of demand for projects in the nuclear, oil and gas, and semiconductor industries, while also preparing for new work that could become available now that US defense spending is set to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. As large-scale projects materialize, those sectors could become significant drivers of project cargo activity through the end of 2025 and beyond — with US energy priorities shifting to fossil fuels and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) driving investments in power-hungry datacenters and semiconductor chip factories. Four major EPCs — Fluor, KBR, TechnipFMC and Worley — were bullish in reporting results from their latest earnings period. EPCs are key shippers of project cargo, procuring and transporting materials and equipment related to the construction of industrial, energy and defense projects. For Australian engineering group Worley, some of the company’s most significant contracts have come from liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, along with other work in the energy, chemicals and resources sectors, according to the company’s 2025 fiscal year report issued Aug. 27. Worley increased its year-over-year annual project bookings by 32% to $11.2 billion; that amount includes the first phase of Venture Global’s CP2 project, a major LNG export facility in Louisiana that was given a notice to proceed in July. All told, Worley is involved in the early phases of about five LNG projects, CEO and managing director Chris Ashton said during the company’s most recent earnings call. “The LNG market presents good opportunities, and we are well-positioned for growth in this area,” Ashton said. Worley is also the EPC for ExxonMobil’s Baytown refinery project in Texas, which was included in Worley’s $11 billion project backlog for the year and contributed to a 22% increase over 2024. <h3>Fluor anticipates turnaround </h3>Texas-based engineering and construction company Fluor is looking to nuclear power, the semiconductor and datacenter markets, and a US mining resurgence for project opportunities after a year-over-year decline in new awards in its most recent quarter. In the company’s second-quarter earnings call, CEO and director James Breur said customers continue to exercise caution because of ongoing trade policy discussions and cost increases. But he expects project investments to accelerate “once the effects of the recently enacted pro-growth policies materialize.” New awards fell 43% to $1.8 billion in the second quarter, with the steepest decline coming from the company’s urban solutions division, which fell 65% to $856 million and includes technology, infrastructure and mining projects. Fluor’s work backlog also fell 13% to $28.2 billion for the quarter. “In semiconductors, our clients’ investment intentions have not yet translated into meaningful new awards,” Breur said of projects to develop microchip facilities. <h3>KBR looks to defense spending boon </h3>Houston-based defense contractor KBR is eyeing project opportunities that could come from the broad spending bill approved by Congress, which became law on July 4 and adds $150 billion in spending to the defense department’s $850 billion baseline budget. “We have line of sight to the first of a $1 trillion defense budget, which is lined up for 2026,” said Stuart Bradie, KBR’s president and CEO. KBR’s year-over-year work backlog grew 5% to $21.6 billion for the second quarter. Major contracts include a $476 million deal to support base operations in Djibouti and a contract extension through 2030 to support the US European Command (EUCOM) and the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). LNG, ammonia and infrastructure were among other core markets for KBR, with the company in July winning a front-end engineering design (FEED) contract to develop an ammonia and urea production plant in Iraq. Meanwhile, multinational oil and gas services contractor TechnipFMC is on pace to reach its three-year goal of $30 billion in work orders from offshore projects by the end of 2025, according to the company’s latest quarterly earnings report. Among those projects is a five-year contract the company won in July from Vår Energi to provide engineering, procurement, construction and installation services for offshore hydrocarbon developments on the Norwegian continental shelf. “We see strength in offshore continuing, supported by client discussions for projects that are likely to be sanctioned through the end of the decade,” TechnipFMC CEO and chairman Douglas Pferdehirt said during the company’s second-quarter earnings call. TechnipFMC’s year-over-year project backlog for the quarter grew 22% to $15.8 billion in its subsea division, which accounts for over 90% of the company’s business and develops systems for offshore oil and gas projects. Just over half of the subsea backlog comes from projects scheduled for or after 2027. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>.</div>

Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) companies are riding a wave of demand for projects in the nuclear, oil and gas, and semiconductor industries, while also preparing for new work that could become available now that US defense spending is set to cross the trillion-dollar threshold. As large-scale projects materialize, those sectors could become significant drivers of project cargo activity through the end of 2025 and beyond — with US energy priorities shifting to fossil fuels and the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) driving investments in power-hungry datacenters and semiconductor chip factories. Four major EPCs — Fluor, KBR, TechnipFMC and Worley — were bullish in reporting results from their latest earnings period. EPCs are key shippers of project cargo, procuring and transporting materials and equipment related to the construction of industrial, energy and defense projects. For Australian engineering group Worley, some of the company’s most significant contracts have come from liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects, along with other work in the energy, chemicals and resources sectors, according to the company’s 2025 fiscal year report issued Aug. 27. Worley increased its year-over-year annual project bookings by 32% to $11.2 billion; that amount includes the first phase of Venture Global’s CP2 project, a major LNG export facility in Louisiana that was given a notice to proceed in July. All told, Worley is involved in the early phases of about five LNG projects, CEO and managing director Chris Ashton said during the company’s most recent earnings call. “The LNG market presents good opportunities, and we are well-positioned for growth in this area,” Ashton said. Worley is also the EPC for ExxonMobil’s Baytown refinery project in Texas, which was included in Worley’s $11 billion project backlog for the year and contributed to a 22% increase over 2024. Fluor anticipates turnaround Texas-based engineering and construction company Fluor is looking to nuclear power, the semiconductor and datacenter markets, and a US mining resurgence for project opportunities after a year-over-year decline in new awards in its most recent quarter. In the company’s second-quarter earnings call, CEO and director James Breur said customers continue to exercise caution because of ongoing trade policy discussions and cost increases. But he expects project investments to accelerate “once the effects of the recently enacted pro-growth policies materialize.” New awards fell 43% to $1.8 billion in the second quarter, with the steepest decline coming from the company’s urban solutions division, which fell 65% to $856 million and includes technology, infrastructure and mining projects. Fluor’s work backlog also fell 13% to $28.2 billion for the quarter. “In semiconductors, our clients’ investment intentions have not yet translated into meaningful new awards,” Breur said of projects to develop microchip facilities. KBR looks to defense spending boon Houston-based defense contractor KBR is eyeing project opportunities that could come from the broad spending bill approved by Congress, which became law on July 4 and adds $150 billion in spending to the defense department’s $850 billion baseline budget. “We have line of sight to the first of a $1 trillion defense budget, which is lined up for 2026,” said Stuart Bradie, KBR’s president and CEO. KBR’s year-over-year work backlog grew 5% to $21.6 billion for the second quarter. Major contracts include a $476 million deal to support base operations in Djibouti and a contract extension through 2030 to support the US European Command (EUCOM) and the US Northern Command (NORTHCOM). LNG, ammonia and infrastructure were among other core markets for KBR, with the company in July winning a front-end engineering design (FEED) contract to develop an ammonia and urea production plant in Iraq. Meanwhile, multinational oil and gas services contractor TechnipFMC is on pace to reach its three-year goal of $30 billion in work orders from offshore projects by the end of 2025, according to the company’s latest quarterly earnings report. Among those projects is a five-year contract the company won in July from Vår Energi to provide engineering, procurement, construction and installation services for offshore hydrocarbon developments on the Norwegian continental shelf. “We see strength in offshore continuing, supported by client discussions for projects that are likely to be sanctioned through the end of the decade,” TechnipFMC CEO and chairman Douglas Pferdehirt said during the company’s second-quarter earnings call. TechnipFMC’s year-over-year project backlog for the quarter grew 22% to $15.8 billion in its subsea division, which accounts for over 90% of the company’s business and develops systems for offshore oil and gas projects. Just over half of the subsea backlog comes from projects scheduled for or after 2027. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk carriers

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Supply chain

EPCs emboldened by investments in energy, tech and defense projects

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The days where container ships could be seen as fungible assets used in flexible ways might be coming to an end, leading to inefficiencies — and higher costs — in global liner networks, writes Lars Jensen.</div>

The days where container ships could be seen as fungible assets used in flexible ways might be coming to an end, leading to inefficiencies — and higher costs — in global liner networks, writes Lars Jensen.

<div class="phx-topic">For stakeholders in the container shipping supply chain, the past four to five months have been a flurry of rapid changes in relation to US tariff policy. It is easy to be caught up in the turmoil that this has caused, including rapid demand and supply swings as well as likely the sharpest and shortest spike in spot rates ever seen on the trans-Pacific. And it is also clear that this kind of turmoil will continue with the US now focusing on potentially implementing tariffs on furniture, which makes up some 7% of total US imports by container volume. An unresolved tariff situation with China and a significant lack of detail around the trade deals already announced only add to the potential volatility. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6070975_0.1.jpg"></img></div>However, there is a potentially more important change beginning to happen that is more global in nature and goes beyond tariffs, one that, to some degree, will challenge the fundamental workings of how shipping networks are usually operated. For the most part, the vessels themselves are fungible assets. If I have a vessel with a capacity of, say, 5,000 TEUs, I can essentially use this vessel anywhere globally, moving any type of cargo in a container for anyone, as well as changing the flag to almost any nation of my choosing. And if I have no need for the vessel, I can sell or charter it to anyone who, in turn, will have the same high degree of flexibility regarding the usage of the vessel. This makes the fleet of container vessels extremely versatile and allows a highly efficient cascading process whereby, for the most part, vessels are moved to the trades where they are most optimally used. Balancing capacity not only with demand but also the capability of port infrastructure allows for a high degree of asset utilization, and consequently, lower costs for shippers. <h3>Efficiency ‘coming under pressure’ </h3>It is this efficiency that is coming under pressure. Keep in mind that part of the value is the fungibility of the vessels — that they can be used anywhere, by anyone, for anyone. This ensures assets are used where they are most suitable. But consider the developments we have seen here in 2025: The US is placing penalties on vessels built, owned or operated in China. This is already beginning to result in network changes as carriers will either shift some port calls and/or phase in vessels from other trades. This would mean suboptimal usage of vessels and ports in order to reduce this externally imposed cost. India prohibited the call of vessels coming from Pakistan, resulting in a sharp reduction of direct services from Pakistan to the rest of the world. Instead, more feeder services were established — clearly suboptimal vessel usage compared with having large vessels call both nations on major deep-sea services. Turkey is prohibiting Israeli-affiliated vessels from calling Turkish ports and is also prohibiting Turkish-flagged vessels from calling Israel. The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia resulted in the closure of the land border, effectively preventing vessels calling the major port in Laem Chabang from efficiently servicing Cambodian imports and exports. Twenty-five container vessels were placed on the US OFAC sanctions list as they were seen as affiliated with Iranian logistics operations, effectively removing approximately one-third of SeaLead Shipping’s fleet from one day to the next. These are merely a few examples from 2025. We have, of course, seen various restrictions in the past, but the speed and scale with which this is ramping up is new. Later in 2025, we will likely see the results of the US Federal Maritime Commission’s investigation into unfair flag state competition. There are no prizes for guessing that, yes, of course there is a skewed competitive landscape — that is why flags of convenience have been popular for centuries. The only relevant question is which type of additional regulations and restrictions the US will then impose based on nationality. Then comes the debacle concerning the carbon tax on marine fossil fuels, which is likely to be adopted at the October meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee. It is crystal clear that the US will not participate. The open question is how many other countries will side with the US, creating more loopholes based on nationality. All in all, the days where container vessels to a significant degree could be seen as fungible assets might be coming to an end. Not that all flexibility will be lost. However, the flexibility is rapidly being reduced, which leads to inefficiencies in the global container liner networks. And inefficiencies equal costs. Lars Jensen is CEO and partner at Vespucci Maritime. Contact him at <a href="mailto:lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com">lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com</a>.</div>

For stakeholders in the container shipping supply chain, the past four to five months have been a flurry of rapid changes in relation to US tariff policy. It is easy to be caught up in the turmoil that this has caused, including rapid demand and supply swings as well as likely the sharpest and shortest spike in spot rates ever seen on the trans-Pacific. And it is also clear that this kind of turmoil will continue with the US now focusing on potentially implementing tariffs on furniture, which makes up some 7% of total US imports by container volume. An unresolved tariff situation with China and a significant lack of detail around the trade deals already announced only add to the potential volatility. However, there is a potentially more important change beginning to happen that is more global in nature and goes beyond tariffs, one that, to some degree, will challenge the fundamental workings of how shipping networks are usually operated. For the most part, the vessels themselves are fungible assets. If I have a vessel with a capacity of, say, 5,000 TEUs, I can essentially use this vessel anywhere globally, moving any type of cargo in a container for anyone, as well as changing the flag to almost any nation of my choosing. And if I have no need for the vessel, I can sell or charter it to anyone who, in turn, will have the same high degree of flexibility regarding the usage of the vessel. This makes the fleet of container vessels extremely versatile and allows a highly efficient cascading process whereby, for the most part, vessels are moved to the trades where they are most optimally used. Balancing capacity not only with demand but also the capability of port infrastructure allows for a high degree of asset utilization, and consequently, lower costs for shippers. Efficiency ‘coming under pressure’ It is this efficiency that is coming under pressure. Keep in mind that part of the value is the fungibility of the vessels — that they can be used anywhere, by anyone, for anyone. This ensures assets are used where they are most suitable. But consider the developments we have seen here in 2025: The US is placing penalties on vessels built, owned or operated in China. This is already beginning to result in network changes as carriers will either shift some port calls and/or phase in vessels from other trades. This would mean suboptimal usage of vessels and ports in order to reduce this externally imposed cost. India prohibited the call of vessels coming from Pakistan, resulting in a sharp reduction of direct services from Pakistan to the rest of the world. Instead, more feeder services were established — clearly suboptimal vessel usage compared with having large vessels call both nations on major deep-sea services. Turkey is prohibiting Israeli-affiliated vessels from calling Turkish ports and is also prohibiting Turkish-flagged vessels from calling Israel. The conflict between Thailand and Cambodia resulted in the closure of the land border, effectively preventing vessels calling the major port in Laem Chabang from efficiently servicing Cambodian imports and exports. Twenty-five container vessels were placed on the US OFAC sanctions list as they were seen as affiliated with Iranian logistics operations, effectively removing approximately one-third of SeaLead Shipping’s fleet from one day to the next. These are merely a few examples from 2025. We have, of course, seen various restrictions in the past, but the speed and scale with which this is ramping up is new. Later in 2025, we will likely see the results of the US Federal Maritime Commission’s investigation into unfair flag state competition. There are no prizes for guessing that, yes, of course there is a skewed competitive landscape — that is why flags of convenience have been popular for centuries. The only relevant question is which type of additional regulations and restrictions the US will then impose based on nationality. Then comes the debacle concerning the carbon tax on marine fossil fuels, which is likely to be adopted at the October meeting of the International Maritime Organization’s Marine Environment Protection Committee. It is crystal clear that the US will not participate. The open question is how many other countries will side with the US, creating more loopholes based on nationality. All in all, the days where container vessels to a significant degree could be seen as fungible assets might be coming to an end. Not that all flexibility will be lost. However, the flexibility is rapidly being reduced, which leads to inefficiencies in the global container liner networks. And inefficiencies equal costs. Lars Jensen is CEO and partner at Vespucci Maritime. Contact him at lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com .

External pressures putting ‘fungibility’ of container shipping at risk: analyst

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

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

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

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

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

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

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

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

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

Ro/ro cargo

Port infrastructure

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Year-over-year % change

PIERS containerized US import and export volumes is the transportation industry’s largest US waterborne trade data set, covering all US ports. Every day, the PIERS team processes an average of about 60,000 bills of lading filed with US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and integrates this transactional trade data with standardized company details. PIERS contains US trade data going back to 2003. [PIERS](https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/mi/products/piers.html)

India subcontinent to US volumes (PIERS)

Indian Subcontinent to US volumes (PIERS)

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Just over 7,000 TEUs of capacity is scheduled to be withdrawn through blank sailings in September even as carriers increase their deployed capacity by 2%.</div>

Just over 7,000 TEUs of capacity is scheduled to be withdrawn through blank sailings in September even as carriers increase their deployed capacity by 2%.

<div class="phx-topic">Rates on the trans-Atlantic westbound ocean trade — a route dominated by Gemini Cooperation and Mediterranean Shipping Co. — have been stuck at loss-making levels for weeks, yet carriers are showing little appetite for blank sailings to raise prices. Spot rates assessed by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce, are at $1,600 per FEU this week, far below the breakeven level ocean carriers say is near $2,100/FEU. Rates have lost only $100 since mid-May. While carriers on the North Europe-US East Coast route are scheduled to increase deployed capacity to 376,132 TEUs in September, up 2% compared with August, just 7,349 TEUs in capacity will be withdrawn via blank sailings, according to data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. However, Destine Ozuygur, product marketing manager for Xeneta, cautioned about reading too much into the low blank sailings levels. “Blanks used to be a standard measure against persistent demand deficit, but it’s also become a widely used tool for ad-hoc reliability management,” Ozuygur said. “Carriers are far more comfortable admitting them into schedules in the short term, and repealing them, than they used to be. “Regardless of the tariff or rate environment, we would naturally expect at least a few more blanks to trickle in over the coming weeks,” she added. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="004f46ea-f9b5-4bd8-96be-a0146f19f1f0"></dynamic-object></div>The restructured ocean alliances have adjusted market share on the trans-Atlantic, leaving the trade lane dominated by MSC and Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd. Data from Alphaliner shows that after splitting from its 2M partner Maersk, MSC increased its Atlantic market share from 41.1% to 41.8% over the 12 months from July 2024 to July 2025. MSC now deploys a fleet of more than 500,000 TEUs between Europe and North America. Hapag-Lloyd remains the second-largest carrier in the trade, but its market share of 14.9% is significantly lower than the 19.6% share it held in July 2024. Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini-partner Maersk increased its market share from 8.9% in July last year to 14.4% this year. “With the absence of both Ocean Alliance and Premier Alliance on this trade, reliability is largely left to Gemini, MSC and the non-alliances services,” said Ozuygur. Despite a lack of wider carrier representation, the present incumbents are not exactly setting reliability records. North Europe to US East Coast schedule reliability in July was 38%, a dismal level by any measure, although still a significant improvement on January’s 24%, Xeneta data showed. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="face521b-d4c4-40cd-b809-f10a6707a371"></dynamic-object></div>Some of the blame can be attributed to ongoing European port congestion that slows vessel turnarounds, which, on the relatively short transits across the Atlantic, “adds another layer of constraint and reduces effective service frequency,” C.H. Robinson noted in a recent market update. <h3>Addressing a new tariff landscape </h3>The schedule reliability and capacity deployed through the rest of the year will likely depend on how demand shapes up in the new trans-Atlantic tariff landscape. In a July 27 deal, a 15% tariff was applied to most EU goods exported to the US instead of the 30% tariff President Donald Trump had previously threatened, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-atlantic-trade-dispute-averted-as-us-eu-reach-weekend-deal-6051144">averting a destructive trade war</a>. The deal included provisions for zero tariffs on certain US exports to the EU and left the door open for negotiations on further market access. Frontloading in June as US-EU trade tensions escalated saw North Europe to US East Coast volume grow 14.2% year over year to almost 200,000 TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. It was short-lived, however, with July volume sliding to 198,750 TEUs. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="808b5499-12f0-4682-8df3-9427d1d05738"></dynamic-object></div>Most observers believe the 15% tariff, while significantly higher than the pre-deal tariffs of about 4.8%, is not high enough to create a material change in shipper behavior on the trans-Atlantic. But Emily Stausbøll, senior analyst at Xeneta, said while 15% was more manageable than the threatened 30%, it was expected to keep demand muted considering frontloading in the second quarter has left fewer goods needing to be moved over the rest of the year. “We are still in a waiting period before we see the real effects of tariffs on prices and US consumer demand, with frontloading and retailers absorbing some of these extra costs,” Stausbøll told the Journal of Commerce. “But at some point, this will be passed on and should lower demand on this trade over the longer term.” The “wait-and-see” approach was also highlighted by an executive from one of the ocean carriers on the trans-Atlantic who said the market did not seem to have been heavily affected by the tariffs. “There have been clients taking a wait-and-see approach and others adding some shipments, but that is not having a major impact on the trade route, partly due to tariffs not being high enough to affect trade flows,” the carrier executive said, adding that the trade lane was expected to “settle without much change.” Xeneta’s Ozuygur agreed that shippers were taking a wait-and-see approach, noting that after the trade agreement, the trans-Atlantic was on a more stable and positive footing than during the volatile buildup to the deal. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Rates on the trans-Atlantic westbound ocean trade — a route dominated by Gemini Cooperation and Mediterranean Shipping Co. — have been stuck at loss-making levels for weeks, yet carriers are showing little appetite for blank sailings to raise prices. Spot rates assessed by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce, are at $1,600 per FEU this week, far below the breakeven level ocean carriers say is near $2,100/FEU. Rates have lost only $100 since mid-May. While carriers on the North Europe-US East Coast route are scheduled to increase deployed capacity to 376,132 TEUs in September, up 2% compared with August, just 7,349 TEUs in capacity will be withdrawn via blank sailings, according to data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. However, Destine Ozuygur, product marketing manager for Xeneta, cautioned about reading too much into the low blank sailings levels. “Blanks used to be a standard measure against persistent demand deficit, but it’s also become a widely used tool for ad-hoc reliability management,” Ozuygur said. “Carriers are far more comfortable admitting them into schedules in the short term, and repealing them, than they used to be. “Regardless of the tariff or rate environment, we would naturally expect at least a few more blanks to trickle in over the coming weeks,” she added. The restructured ocean alliances have adjusted market share on the trans-Atlantic, leaving the trade lane dominated by MSC and Gemini partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd. Data from Alphaliner shows that after splitting from its 2M partner Maersk, MSC increased its Atlantic market share from 41.1% to 41.8% over the 12 months from July 2024 to July 2025. MSC now deploys a fleet of more than 500,000 TEUs between Europe and North America. Hapag-Lloyd remains the second-largest carrier in the trade, but its market share of 14.9% is significantly lower than the 19.6% share it held in July 2024. Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini-partner Maersk increased its market share from 8.9% in July last year to 14.4% this year. “With the absence of both Ocean Alliance and Premier Alliance on this trade, reliability is largely left to Gemini, MSC and the non-alliances services,” said Ozuygur. Despite a lack of wider carrier representation, the present incumbents are not exactly setting reliability records. North Europe to US East Coast schedule reliability in July was 38%, a dismal level by any measure, although still a significant improvement on January’s 24%, Xeneta data showed. Some of the blame can be attributed to ongoing European port congestion that slows vessel turnarounds, which, on the relatively short transits across the Atlantic, “adds another layer of constraint and reduces effective service frequency,” C.H. Robinson noted in a recent market update. Addressing a new tariff landscape The schedule reliability and capacity deployed through the rest of the year will likely depend on how demand shapes up in the new trans-Atlantic tariff landscape. In a July 27 deal, a 15% tariff was applied to most EU goods exported to the US instead of the 30% tariff President Donald Trump had previously threatened, averting a destructive trade war . The deal included provisions for zero tariffs on certain US exports to the EU and left the door open for negotiations on further market access. Frontloading in June as US-EU trade tensions escalated saw North Europe to US East Coast volume grow 14.2% year over year to almost 200,000 TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. It was short-lived, however, with July volume sliding to 198,750 TEUs. Most observers believe the 15% tariff, while significantly higher than the pre-deal tariffs of about 4.8%, is not high enough to create a material change in shipper behavior on the trans-Atlantic. But Emily Stausbøll, senior analyst at Xeneta, said while 15% was more manageable than the threatened 30%, it was expected to keep demand muted considering frontloading in the second quarter has left fewer goods needing to be moved over the rest of the year. “We are still in a waiting period before we see the real effects of tariffs on prices and US consumer demand, with frontloading and retailers absorbing some of these extra costs,” Stausbøll told the Journal of Commerce. “But at some point, this will be passed on and should lower demand on this trade over the longer term.” The “wait-and-see” approach was also highlighted by an executive from one of the ocean carriers on the trans-Atlantic who said the market did not seem to have been heavily affected by the tariffs. “There have been clients taking a wait-and-see approach and others adding some shipments, but that is not having a major impact on the trade route, partly due to tariffs not being high enough to affect trade flows,” the carrier executive said, adding that the trade lane was expected to “settle without much change.” Xeneta’s Ozuygur agreed that shippers were taking a wait-and-see approach, noting that after the trade agreement, the trans-Atlantic was on a more stable and positive footing than during the volatile buildup to the deal. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Trans-Atlantic carriers limit capacity cuts despite ongoing rate weakness

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The announcement of Leatherman’s expansion comes as MSC looks to bring in more trans-Atlantic services to call the terminal.</div>

The announcement of Leatherman’s expansion comes as MSC looks to bring in more trans-Atlantic services to call the terminal.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Charleston plans to add a second big ship berth to its Hugh K. Leatherman marine terminal, with the terminal’s main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co., readying to bring new trans-Atlantic capacity to the port. The South Carolina State Ports Authority (SC Ports) said in a statement this week it began installing the test piles to ensure the integrity of a new 1,600-foot berth at Leatherman. The second berth, outfitted with five cranes, will allow the terminal to handle two super-post-Panamax vessels at once. SC Ports said it expects to complete the second berth by late 2026, bringing Leatherman’s capacity to about 1.6 million TEUs per year. The port’s board of directors approved an $88.5 million contract with Orion Marine Group for the preliminary work. Plans for a third berth at Leatherman, which would bring it to full capacity of 2.4 million TEUs, have yet to go forward. SC Ports said the cost of both the second and third berths could reach a total of $1.5 billion. In addition to the second berth, Leatherman will also be able to offer near-dock rail service with the opening of the Navy Base Intermodal Facility. SC Ports said it is in the process of commissioning six rail-mounted gantry cranes for that facility, which is expected to open by early 2026. <h3>MSC adds services </h3>Leatherman’s sole berth has seen usage rise quickly a little over a year after SC Ports and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) settled <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/sc-ports-strikes-deal-with-ila-to-fully-open-leatherman-marine-terminal-5192280">a legal dispute that kept ocean carriers away from the terminal</a>. Leatherman handled 45 vessels in the second quarter, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The second-quarter vessel count was up from 33 ships in the first quarter and 23 in the fourth quarter of 2024. Zim Shipping became <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-becomes-first-carrier-to-commit-to-reopened-leatherman-terminal-5735909">the first carrier to provide weekly service into Leatherman</a> following its reopening, but it has since moved the service to Charleston’s other marine terminal. Now, Leatherman primarily handles MSC services from the Indian subcontinent and the Mediterranean. SC Ports said MSC will bring two additional trans-Atlantic services to Leatherman starting in September. Those include the “Albatros” service from Baltic ports and London’s Felixstowe, and the “Dragon” service between the Mediterranean and the US East Coast. Thanks to the presence of automakers and other high-value manufacturing in South Carolina, Charleston sees relatively steady freight volumes coming from Europe. Since the start of 2024, containerized imports from Europe into Charleston have averaged 89,125 TEUs per quarter, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Hapag-Lloyd carries the majority of the trans-Atlantic freight into Charleston, with its average quarterly volume near 29,590 TEUs, PIERS data shows. MSC is second with a quarterly average of 21,939 TEUs. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of Charleston plans to add a second big ship berth to its Hugh K. Leatherman marine terminal, with the terminal’s main customer, Mediterranean Shipping Co., readying to bring new trans-Atlantic capacity to the port. The South Carolina State Ports Authority (SC Ports) said in a statement this week it began installing the test piles to ensure the integrity of a new 1,600-foot berth at Leatherman. The second berth, outfitted with five cranes, will allow the terminal to handle two super-post-Panamax vessels at once. SC Ports said it expects to complete the second berth by late 2026, bringing Leatherman’s capacity to about 1.6 million TEUs per year. The port’s board of directors approved an $88.5 million contract with Orion Marine Group for the preliminary work. Plans for a third berth at Leatherman, which would bring it to full capacity of 2.4 million TEUs, have yet to go forward. SC Ports said the cost of both the second and third berths could reach a total of $1.5 billion. In addition to the second berth, Leatherman will also be able to offer near-dock rail service with the opening of the Navy Base Intermodal Facility. SC Ports said it is in the process of commissioning six rail-mounted gantry cranes for that facility, which is expected to open by early 2026. MSC adds services Leatherman’s sole berth has seen usage rise quickly a little over a year after SC Ports and the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) settled a legal dispute that kept ocean carriers away from the terminal . Leatherman handled 45 vessels in the second quarter, according to data from Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The second-quarter vessel count was up from 33 ships in the first quarter and 23 in the fourth quarter of 2024. Zim Shipping became the first carrier to provide weekly service into Leatherman following its reopening, but it has since moved the service to Charleston’s other marine terminal. Now, Leatherman primarily handles MSC services from the Indian subcontinent and the Mediterranean. SC Ports said MSC will bring two additional trans-Atlantic services to Leatherman starting in September. Those include the “Albatros” service from Baltic ports and London’s Felixstowe, and the “Dragon” service between the Mediterranean and the US East Coast. Thanks to the presence of automakers and other high-value manufacturing in South Carolina, Charleston sees relatively steady freight volumes coming from Europe. Since the start of 2024, containerized imports from Europe into Charleston have averaged 89,125 TEUs per quarter, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Hapag-Lloyd carries the majority of the trans-Atlantic freight into Charleston, with its average quarterly volume near 29,590 TEUs, PIERS data shows. MSC is second with a quarterly average of 21,939 TEUs. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Charleston’s Leatherman terminal eyes second berth by late 2026

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The difficulties have led to transshipment delays and rolled cargo, which have caused increased yard density at some ports that has exacerbated delays, shipping sources say. </div>

The difficulties have led to transshipment delays and rolled cargo, which have caused increased yard density at some ports that has exacerbated delays, shipping sources say.

<div class="phx-topic">Tight feeder capacity between secondary ports in Asia and the region’s main transshipment hubs are hitting both exports from Asia and imports to the region from the US and Europe, forwarders and carriers say. Shippers are having to wait up to a month to secure space on some carriers serving Thailand and Indonesia, according to forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce. The difficulties have led to transshipment delays and rolled cargo, which have caused increased yard density at some ports that has exacerbated delays, shipping sources say. The problems have been compounded by bad weather, including typhoons in China, carriers said. “For Thailand, cargo bookings must be made at least three to four weeks ahead,” a spokesperson for FIBS Logistics in Singapore said. “Most bookings for Indonesian cargo are only being accepted with a minimum lead time of two to three weeks.” The spokesperson said FIBS Logistics has been impacted by the delays on its own customer shipments, with even short-haul services affected. “We need to book two to three weeks in advance for cargo from Batam, Indonesia, for connections to the mother vessel in Singapore,” the source said. "These delays are largely due to feeder capacity shortages, which are impacting both exports and imports across Asia and resulting in cargo rolling.” Forwarder Rhenus Logistics said the feeder capacity shortages began in June and have been the result of a tariff-related cargo surge from Southeast Asia. “We have been experiencing some challenges with feeder capacity out of Southeast Asia over the past three months,” Scott Dudley, Rhenus’ head of ocean freight for North America, told the Journal of Commerce. “These challenges are mainly tied to carriers and alliances operating transshipment services out of Southeast Asia cargo origins.” <h3>Carriers being particular on US export choices </h3>The disruption at transshipment hubs, including those in Asia, has led carriers to pick and choose which export cargo from the US to accept. “If it’s a direct lane, they have a very high appetite,” said M. Can Fidan, executive vice president of business development at New York-based forwarder MTS Logistics. “If it’s a transshipment or if it is off their hub-and-spoke lanes, then they are not. “So, it’s a very interesting environment where carriers are actually looking for cargo on the export, but only looking for cargo that fits their shipping model, rather than a general area,” he added. A Hong Kong-based freight forwarder said it is fortunate the disruption largely comes after the cargo rush caused by shippers consigning shipments early to beat the Trump administration’s mid-August tariff deadline. “Transshipping cargo to and from second-tier markets like Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam is a mess right now, with cargo rolling and delays at the key hub ports,” the source said. “But it would be significantly worse if these countries hadn’t cut tariff deals with the US at the end of July.” <h3>Multiple-day delays </h3>Highlighting congestion and cargo delays at key Asian gateways, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Kuehne + Nagel all reported disrupted operations at Singapore, Shanghai, Ningbo, Qingdao and Malaysia’s Port Klang in recent customer advisories. CMA CGM said it had up to 60,000 TEUs of transshipment cargo waiting at Singapore last week. “Overall yard density [in Singapore] is high — around 85% to 90% that is impacting overall operations productivity,” the carrier said in a trans-Pacific weekly update. CMA CGM said Singapore terminal operator PSA is rejecting port-in/port-out (PIPO) boxes and vessels that are discharging more containers than loading containers until yard density drops back to a normal level. Heavy berth congestion meant there was at least a two-day delay at all of PSA’s Singapore terminals, both CMA CGM and Kuehne + Nagel said. Shanghai is also heavily congested with a two- to three-day delay at the city center Waigaiqiao terminals and up to a four-day wait at the deepwater Yangshan terminals due to continuing disruption caused by the port’s closure during Typhoon Co-May at the end of July, carriers said. The typhoon was one of three tropical storms to disrupt port operations in eastern and southern China since mid-July. Hapag-Lloyd said vessels are having to wait up to three days to berth at Ningbo due to the bunching of vessels and up to two days at Qingdao. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Tight feeder capacity between secondary ports in Asia and the region’s main transshipment hubs are hitting both exports from Asia and imports to the region from the US and Europe, forwarders and carriers say. Shippers are having to wait up to a month to secure space on some carriers serving Thailand and Indonesia, according to forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce. The difficulties have led to transshipment delays and rolled cargo, which have caused increased yard density at some ports that has exacerbated delays, shipping sources say. The problems have been compounded by bad weather, including typhoons in China, carriers said. “For Thailand, cargo bookings must be made at least three to four weeks ahead,” a spokesperson for FIBS Logistics in Singapore said. “Most bookings for Indonesian cargo are only being accepted with a minimum lead time of two to three weeks.” The spokesperson said FIBS Logistics has been impacted by the delays on its own customer shipments, with even short-haul services affected. “We need to book two to three weeks in advance for cargo from Batam, Indonesia, for connections to the mother vessel in Singapore,” the source said. "These delays are largely due to feeder capacity shortages, which are impacting both exports and imports across Asia and resulting in cargo rolling.” Forwarder Rhenus Logistics said the feeder capacity shortages began in June and have been the result of a tariff-related cargo surge from Southeast Asia. “We have been experiencing some challenges with feeder capacity out of Southeast Asia over the past three months,” Scott Dudley, Rhenus’ head of ocean freight for North America, told the Journal of Commerce. “These challenges are mainly tied to carriers and alliances operating transshipment services out of Southeast Asia cargo origins.” Carriers being particular on US export choices The disruption at transshipment hubs, including those in Asia, has led carriers to pick and choose which export cargo from the US to accept. “If it’s a direct lane, they have a very high appetite,” said M. Can Fidan, executive vice president of business development at New York-based forwarder MTS Logistics. “If it’s a transshipment or if it is off their hub-and-spoke lanes, then they are not. “So, it’s a very interesting environment where carriers are actually looking for cargo on the export, but only looking for cargo that fits their shipping model, rather than a general area,” he added. A Hong Kong-based freight forwarder said it is fortunate the disruption largely comes after the cargo rush caused by shippers consigning shipments early to beat the Trump administration’s mid-August tariff deadline. “Transshipping cargo to and from second-tier markets like Thailand, the Philippines and Vietnam is a mess right now, with cargo rolling and delays at the key hub ports,” the source said. “But it would be significantly worse if these countries hadn’t cut tariff deals with the US at the end of July.” Multiple-day delays Highlighting congestion and cargo delays at key Asian gateways, CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd and Kuehne + Nagel all reported disrupted operations at Singapore, Shanghai, Ningbo, Qingdao and Malaysia’s Port Klang in recent customer advisories. CMA CGM said it had up to 60,000 TEUs of transshipment cargo waiting at Singapore last week. “Overall yard density [in Singapore] is high — around 85% to 90% that is impacting overall operations productivity,” the carrier said in a trans-Pacific weekly update. CMA CGM said Singapore terminal operator PSA is rejecting port-in/port-out (PIPO) boxes and vessels that are discharging more containers than loading containers until yard density drops back to a normal level. Heavy berth congestion meant there was at least a two-day delay at all of PSA’s Singapore terminals, both CMA CGM and Kuehne + Nagel said. Shanghai is also heavily congested with a two- to three-day delay at the city center Waigaiqiao terminals and up to a four-day wait at the deepwater Yangshan terminals due to continuing disruption caused by the port’s closure during Typhoon Co-May at the end of July, carriers said. The typhoon was one of three tropical storms to disrupt port operations in eastern and southern China since mid-July. Hapag-Lloyd said vessels are having to wait up to three days to berth at Ningbo due to the bunching of vessels and up to two days at Qingdao. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Asia-Europe

Tight Asia feeder capacity causing disruption for export, import shippers

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

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

END OF SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Photo 2.png

SSA Marine Mexico: True Commitment to Sustainability

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

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

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

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

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

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

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

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

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

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

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The unit cost of moving a container has been pushed higher compared with the prevailing pre-pandemic price structure, according to carrier executives, prompting cost-control measures.</div>

The unit cost of moving a container has been pushed higher compared with the prevailing pre-pandemic price structure, according to carrier executives, prompting cost-control measures.

<div class="phx-topic">Container lines, facing rate pressure on all major trades, are doubling down on cutting costs that have materially increased above pre-pandemic levels. Executives from Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services told investors during second-quarter earnings calls that they are facing higher prices from shipbuilding to port labor. And that has prompted cost-cutting measures ranging from improving fuel efficiency through better scheduling, cutting port time, returning chartered ships at the end of contracts and slow steaming. “Pre-COVID we were bunkering the ships on HFO [heavy fuel oil], and since then we have transitioned to VLSFO [very low-sulfur fuel oil]. This is a cost increase,” Zim CFO Xavier Destriau told analysts. “If we look at the newbuilding price, that went up. The chartering rate went up. So the cost of securing tonnage has also gone up compared to the prior period.” Destriau also pointed to increases in cargo handling charges, higher wages for dockworkers that are passed on to carriers, and a lack of terminal investment that has made port congestion an ongoing challenge requiring more ships per string. “To give you an example, our main Asia to the US East Coast service used to operate on a weekly basis with 10 ships pre-COVID, but now we need 12 in order to maintain the weekly schedule,” he said. “All these elements of additional cost have found their way into our cost structure, and that contributes to increasing the overall cost that we carry,” Destriau added. While carriers believe higher rates at the end of the second quarter and strong bookings through July will ensure third-quarter earnings are close to those recorded in the second quarter, the shipping companies are expecting a fourth-quarter decline and thus are intensifying cost-reduction efforts across their networks to mitigate any supply-demand shortfall. <h3>Steady rise in capacity </h3>Global demand has been resilient year to date, but J.P. Morgan in a market update Tuesday pointed to softening trends in the second half. The bank highlighted overall first-half ocean volume growth of 4.5% year over year, while real global GDP grew 3% in the same period. “We expect market growth to slow in the second half and forecast 1.8% in Q3 and flat in Q4 [-0.3%],” the bank noted. “For 2026 onwards, we estimate volume growth of 2% per annum, broadly in line with J.P. Morgan economists’ real GDP growth forecasts, as we expect the trade multiplier to hold at 1x.” J.P. Morgan is expecting the rate erosion to accelerate over the next two years as demand slows and capacity grows, pushing the industry into deep losses. “We expect a widening demand-supply imbalance into H2 25, driven by slower demand growth into the end of the year and estimated effective supply growth of 6.5% year over year,” the bank noted. A return of sailings to the Red Sea in 2026 will drive supply growth up 9%, but even if the route remains closed, effective supply will still grow 3% to 5%, the market update predicted. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e9676ea4-c6b9-4589-9a4b-822a9c82e2f8"></dynamic-object></div>Spot rates are certainly feeling the effects of weakening demand and excess capacity. Asia-US West Coast spot rates at $1,640 per FEU are one-third of the price at the beginning of January, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. On Asia-North Europe routes, rates are half of what they were on Jan. 1, while on the trans-Atlantic westbound trade, spot prices <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-atlantic-carriers-limit-capacity-cuts-despite-ongoing-rate-weakness-6066878">have been at loss-making levels for weeks</a>. At the same time, capacity is steadily increasing. The global order book is now 9.3 million TEUs, or 29% of the in-service fleet, according to Alphaliner. About 1.8 million TEUs of capacity are set to be delivered this year, with another 1.6 million TEUs coming online in 2026, according to Drewry. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="77c97ac7-f6be-4816-9394-8c10326f863f"></dynamic-object></div>Still, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told analysts on the carrier’s recent second-quarter earnings call that while rates were falling on the major trade lanes, he could not imagine any scenario where they would remain 10% to 20% below unit cost levels for a sustained period due to underlying supportive fundamentals. “Anyone who believes that freight rates would go back to that level, it’s just not going to happen because we see EU ETS [Emissions Trading System], we see low-sulfur fuel, we see the prices of shipyards having gone up significantly on investments that need to be done for newer ships,” he said, adding that port congestion means boxes and ships take longer to turn. In an aggressive move to bring down expenses in a rapidly eroding rate environment, Hapag-Lloyd recently launched a comprehensive cost-cutting program that targets more than $1 billion in savings by the end of 2026, with the program extending across the carrier’s network and including synergies and efficiency gains from its Gemini Corporation alliance with Maersk. “We set ourselves a target to bring unit costs down in a double-digit percentage versus what we saw in 2022 ... I think that is achievable,” Habben Jansen said. “I also believe the $1 billion plus [cost-cutting target] is realistic to get that out until the end of next year.” <h3>No return to 2019 rate levels </h3>Habben Jansen said even with the extensive cuts in expenses, it would not bring the carrier costs back to 2019 levels “for the very simple reason that some of our factor costs are very different.” “We did not have the EU ETS before COVID, and we did not have low-sulfur fuel. Those alone will drive up costs quite significantly,” he said. “Then there has been inflation that impacts our cost as well, and you certainly cannot negotiate that away.” Unit costs at Hapag-Lloyd rose 4% in the first half year over year to $1,320 per TEU, up more than $300 per TEU compared with pre-pandemic times. However, a significant portion of the increased expenses were generated by the startup investments required in the transition of Hapag-Lloyd’s services to the new Gemini Cooperation network. While Gemini’s startup expenses were adding to the costs of its members, Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc outlined the cost savings that will be generated by the new network with “two principal buckets” set to drive down unit costs. “One is the reliability of schedules that means lower fuel consumption,” Clerc said during the carrier’s recent second-quarter earnings call with analysts. “The second one is less sail distances also means higher asset intensity where we can basically move more cargo on the same amount of tonnage, which lowers the unit cost as well.” Clerc said cost increases in the charter markets and at marine terminals battling congestion were being exacerbated by ongoing diversions around southern Africa to avoid attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. “We saw further inflation in the cost base because of the longer sailing distances that we have, which means that our breakeven point is higher now than it was in 2019,” he said, although he did not disclose Maersk’s rate breakeven point. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Container lines, facing rate pressure on all major trades, are doubling down on cutting costs that have materially increased above pre-pandemic levels. Executives from Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services told investors during second-quarter earnings calls that they are facing higher prices from shipbuilding to port labor. And that has prompted cost-cutting measures ranging from improving fuel efficiency through better scheduling, cutting port time, returning chartered ships at the end of contracts and slow steaming. “Pre-COVID we were bunkering the ships on HFO [heavy fuel oil], and since then we have transitioned to VLSFO [very low-sulfur fuel oil]. This is a cost increase,” Zim CFO Xavier Destriau told analysts. “If we look at the newbuilding price, that went up. The chartering rate went up. So the cost of securing tonnage has also gone up compared to the prior period.” Destriau also pointed to increases in cargo handling charges, higher wages for dockworkers that are passed on to carriers, and a lack of terminal investment that has made port congestion an ongoing challenge requiring more ships per string. “To give you an example, our main Asia to the US East Coast service used to operate on a weekly basis with 10 ships pre-COVID, but now we need 12 in order to maintain the weekly schedule,” he said. “All these elements of additional cost have found their way into our cost structure, and that contributes to increasing the overall cost that we carry,” Destriau added. While carriers believe higher rates at the end of the second quarter and strong bookings through July will ensure third-quarter earnings are close to those recorded in the second quarter, the shipping companies are expecting a fourth-quarter decline and thus are intensifying cost-reduction efforts across their networks to mitigate any supply-demand shortfall. Steady rise in capacity Global demand has been resilient year to date, but J.P. Morgan in a market update Tuesday pointed to softening trends in the second half. The bank highlighted overall first-half ocean volume growth of 4.5% year over year, while real global GDP grew 3% in the same period. “We expect market growth to slow in the second half and forecast 1.8% in Q3 and flat in Q4 [-0.3%],” the bank noted. “For 2026 onwards, we estimate volume growth of 2% per annum, broadly in line with J.P. Morgan economists’ real GDP growth forecasts, as we expect the trade multiplier to hold at 1x.” J.P. Morgan is expecting the rate erosion to accelerate over the next two years as demand slows and capacity grows, pushing the industry into deep losses. “We expect a widening demand-supply imbalance into H2 25, driven by slower demand growth into the end of the year and estimated effective supply growth of 6.5% year over year,” the bank noted. A return of sailings to the Red Sea in 2026 will drive supply growth up 9%, but even if the route remains closed, effective supply will still grow 3% to 5%, the market update predicted. Spot rates are certainly feeling the effects of weakening demand and excess capacity. Asia-US West Coast spot rates at $1,640 per FEU are one-third of the price at the beginning of January, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. On Asia-North Europe routes, rates are half of what they were on Jan. 1, while on the trans-Atlantic westbound trade, spot prices have been at loss-making levels for weeks . At the same time, capacity is steadily increasing. The global order book is now 9.3 million TEUs, or 29% of the in-service fleet, according to Alphaliner. About 1.8 million TEUs of capacity are set to be delivered this year, with another 1.6 million TEUs coming online in 2026, according to Drewry. Still, Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen told analysts on the carrier’s recent second-quarter earnings call that while rates were falling on the major trade lanes, he could not imagine any scenario where they would remain 10% to 20% below unit cost levels for a sustained period due to underlying supportive fundamentals. “Anyone who believes that freight rates would go back to that level, it’s just not going to happen because we see EU ETS [Emissions Trading System], we see low-sulfur fuel, we see the prices of shipyards having gone up significantly on investments that need to be done for newer ships,” he said, adding that port congestion means boxes and ships take longer to turn. In an aggressive move to bring down expenses in a rapidly eroding rate environment, Hapag-Lloyd recently launched a comprehensive cost-cutting program that targets more than $1 billion in savings by the end of 2026, with the program extending across the carrier’s network and including synergies and efficiency gains from its Gemini Corporation alliance with Maersk. “We set ourselves a target to bring unit costs down in a double-digit percentage versus what we saw in 2022 ... I think that is achievable,” Habben Jansen said. “I also believe the $1 billion plus [cost-cutting target] is realistic to get that out until the end of next year.” No return to 2019 rate levels Habben Jansen said even with the extensive cuts in expenses, it would not bring the carrier costs back to 2019 levels “for the very simple reason that some of our factor costs are very different.” “We did not have the EU ETS before COVID, and we did not have low-sulfur fuel. Those alone will drive up costs quite significantly,” he said. “Then there has been inflation that impacts our cost as well, and you certainly cannot negotiate that away.” Unit costs at Hapag-Lloyd rose 4% in the first half year over year to $1,320 per TEU, up more than $300 per TEU compared with pre-pandemic times. However, a significant portion of the increased expenses were generated by the startup investments required in the transition of Hapag-Lloyd’s services to the new Gemini Cooperation network. While Gemini’s startup expenses were adding to the costs of its members, Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc outlined the cost savings that will be generated by the new network with “two principal buckets” set to drive down unit costs. “One is the reliability of schedules that means lower fuel consumption,” Clerc said during the carrier’s recent second-quarter earnings call with analysts. “The second one is less sail distances also means higher asset intensity where we can basically move more cargo on the same amount of tonnage, which lowers the unit cost as well.” Clerc said cost increases in the charter markets and at marine terminals battling congestion were being exacerbated by ongoing diversions around southern Africa to avoid attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. “We saw further inflation in the cost base because of the longer sailing distances that we have, which means that our breakeven point is higher now than it was in 2019,” he said, although he did not disclose Maersk’s rate breakeven point. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Ocean carriers intensify cost-cutting efforts as rates slide on major trades

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy gave California, New Mexico and Washington 30 days to adopt and enforce ELP regulations or lose access to federal safety funding. </div>

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy gave California, New Mexico and Washington 30 days to adopt and enforce ELP regulations or lose access to federal safety funding.

<div class="phx-topic">California, New Mexico and Washington will lose access to federal motor carrier safety funding unless those states adopt and enforce a federal <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-dot-initiates-crackdown-on-non-english-speaking-truckers-6009357">English language proficiency</a> (ELP) requirement for truck drivers, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Tuesday. “States don’t get to pick and choose which federal safety rules to follow,” Duffy said at a press conference in Washington, DC. Duffy gave the states 30 days to adopt and enforce ELP regulations or lose access to Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds. The Department of Transportation (DOT) sent notices to California, New Mexico and Washington opening a process that would freeze millions of dollars in funds distributed annually through the MCSAP program, which helps fund law enforcement. California received approximately $30.7 million in MCSAP funding in fiscal year 2024, while Washington received $9.8 million and New Mexico about $6.7 million, according to the US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which administers MCSAP. “It’s my hope these states will understand the common sense nature of what we’re doing and become good partners,” Duffy said. “This is about keeping individuals and families safe as we use our roadways.” The states have not responded to DOT’s announcement. The DOT’s action follows an investigation into an Aug. 12 accident in Florida that claimed three lives when a truck driver, Harjinder Singh, made an illegal U-turn. Singh, who federal officials claim entered the US illegally and obtained commercial driver’s licenses from Washington and California, failed a post-accident English language test. Following the accident, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio <a href="https://x.com/secrubio/status/1958644528253948015?s=46&amp;t=yxYBta0zhKqvzUP8zCYxjw">last Thursday announced</a> a freeze on certain worker visas for non-US commercial truck drivers. The State Department later clarified the targeted credentials were H-2B, E-2 and EB-3 work visas. H-2B visas are capped at 66,000 a year, and truck drivers represent a small portion of those. The other visas are aimed at investors and skilled workers. Singh has not been reported to have a work visa of any type. The company he worked for, White Hawk Carriers of Ceres, California, no longer has <a href="https://ai.fmcsa.dot.gov/SMS/Carrier/2866642/Overview.aspx?FirstView=True">for-hire operating authority</a>. Neither greater ELP enforcement nor a related freeze on new work visas are expected to have <a href="https://apnews.com/article/foreign-truckers-visas-rubio-trump-florida-crash-beee82cfa284a174d7a74c42199bbd45">a major impact</a> on US truck capacity or pricing. <h3>ELP enforcement </h3>The DOT action highlights uneven state enforcement of the ELP requirement. Since June 25, the FMCSA has considered failure to pass an ELP test as an out-of-service violation for truck drivers. New Mexico and Washington have adopted the ELP guidance issued by the DOT but are not enforcing it, the DOT said in a statement, adding that California has yet to adopt and enforce compatible ELP laws and regulations. New Mexico allegedly did not administer an ELP test when state police conducted a roadside inspection of Singh and his truck in July. Singh was given a speeding ticket. States receiving MCSAP funds are required to adopt FMCSA regulations <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/congress-states-join-dot-targeting-non-english-speaking-truckers-6014680">in their own laws</a>, but how that is done, and how quickly, can vary from state to state. Out of 6,067 ELP violations issued during roadside inspections so far in calendar year 2025, 1,201 have resulted in out-of-service orders, according to FMCSA data. That compares with 5,863 violations and five out-of-service orders in calendar year 2024. An analysis by <a href="https://www.overdriveonline.com/regulations/article/15751741/california-highway-patrol-not-enforcing-trumps-elp-mandate-for-truck-drivers">trucker magazine Overdrive</a> found Texas, Arizona and California were the top three states for ELP violations from June 25 to July 20, with 2,089 violations. Those violations only resulted in 50 out-of-service orders, however. That’s because most of those violations occurred in counties on the US-Mexico border, where inspectors are allowed to issue violations but not place drivers out of service. Non-border states mostly have placed drivers with ELP violations out of service since June 25, Overdrive found. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

California, New Mexico and Washington will lose access to federal motor carrier safety funding unless those states adopt and enforce a federal English language proficiency (ELP) requirement for truck drivers, US Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said Tuesday. “States don’t get to pick and choose which federal safety rules to follow,” Duffy said at a press conference in Washington, DC. Duffy gave the states 30 days to adopt and enforce ELP regulations or lose access to Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) funds. The Department of Transportation (DOT) sent notices to California, New Mexico and Washington opening a process that would freeze millions of dollars in funds distributed annually through the MCSAP program, which helps fund law enforcement. California received approximately $30.7 million in MCSAP funding in fiscal year 2024, while Washington received $9.8 million and New Mexico about $6.7 million, according to the US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which administers MCSAP. “It’s my hope these states will understand the common sense nature of what we’re doing and become good partners,” Duffy said. “This is about keeping individuals and families safe as we use our roadways.” The states have not responded to DOT’s announcement. The DOT’s action follows an investigation into an Aug. 12 accident in Florida that claimed three lives when a truck driver, Harjinder Singh, made an illegal U-turn. Singh, who federal officials claim entered the US illegally and obtained commercial driver’s licenses from Washington and California, failed a post-accident English language test. Following the accident, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio last Thursday announced a freeze on certain worker visas for non-US commercial truck drivers. The State Department later clarified the targeted credentials were H-2B, E-2 and EB-3 work visas. H-2B visas are capped at 66,000 a year, and truck drivers represent a small portion of those. The other visas are aimed at investors and skilled workers. Singh has not been reported to have a work visa of any type. The company he worked for, White Hawk Carriers of Ceres, California, no longer has for-hire operating authority . Neither greater ELP enforcement nor a related freeze on new work visas are expected to have a major impact on US truck capacity or pricing. ELP enforcement The DOT action highlights uneven state enforcement of the ELP requirement. Since June 25, the FMCSA has considered failure to pass an ELP test as an out-of-service violation for truck drivers. New Mexico and Washington have adopted the ELP guidance issued by the DOT but are not enforcing it, the DOT said in a statement, adding that California has yet to adopt and enforce compatible ELP laws and regulations. New Mexico allegedly did not administer an ELP test when state police conducted a roadside inspection of Singh and his truck in July. Singh was given a speeding ticket. States receiving MCSAP funds are required to adopt FMCSA regulations in their own laws , but how that is done, and how quickly, can vary from state to state. Out of 6,067 ELP violations issued during roadside inspections so far in calendar year 2025, 1,201 have resulted in out-of-service orders, according to FMCSA data. That compares with 5,863 violations and five out-of-service orders in calendar year 2024. An analysis by trucker magazine Overdrive found Texas, Arizona and California were the top three states for ELP violations from June 25 to July 20, with 2,089 violations. Those violations only resulted in 50 out-of-service orders, however. That’s because most of those violations occurred in counties on the US-Mexico border, where inspectors are allowed to issue violations but not place drivers out of service. Non-border states mostly have placed drivers with ELP violations out of service since June 25, Overdrive found. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Flatbed

Trucking labor

Surface

US DOT presses states to enforce English-language trucking rules

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Sentiment heard with greater frequency from within the industry and from financial analysts holds that overcapacity will overwhelm constraints on capacity in a possible multi-year swoon.</div>

Sentiment heard with greater frequency from within the industry and from financial analysts holds that overcapacity will overwhelm constraints on capacity in a possible multi-year swoon.

<div class="phx-topic">It is becoming hard to shake the impression that container shipping is headed into a rocky stretch — for shippers and carriers alike. Sentiment heard with greater frequency from within the industry and from financial analysts holds that overcapacity will overwhelm constraints on capacity in a possible multi-year swoon, sending rates back to pre-COVID-19 levels and leading carriers to experience “deep losses,” according to J.P. Morgan. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6069890_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“We continue to see an industry that is suffering from material oversupply,” J.P. Morgan wrote in a market update Tuesday. “We see this as a clear issue that the industry will be forced to negotiate, even if diversions away from Suez last longer than we expect.” Thus, breaks on capacity driven by factors external to the industry, such as Red Sea diversions, as well as growing port congestion, both of which carriers have benefited enormously from since the pandemic, will be no match for the growing impact of 30% more capacity hitting the water in the coming years as the largest order book since 2009 is processed and delivered. For US shippers facing margin pressure due to tariffs, lower rates will be a welcome relief from the toxic dynamic since COVID, when rates soared while reliability collapsed. But there is a flip side to that: The rocky stretch for shippers will materialize as carriers react to unfavorable market dynamics, as they inevitably will. Carriers may be unable to neutralize the impact of overcapacity, but they can mitigate it, or at the very least will try. As fundamentals deteriorate, carriers will react in ways that will be less visible to shippers, such as by increasing the scrapping of older ships. But they will also react in ways that will directly affect shippers, who will likely experience a prolonged spate of blank sailings, network adjustments and slow steaming that result in longer transit times, causing a broader supply chain impact on inventories and lead times. That scenario will occur because, outside of the Gemini Cooperation alliance, which launched earlier this year on the premise of delivering 90%-plus schedule reliability to the market, the broader carrier industry is focused primarily on managing its network in support of its own financial well-being, even if doing so comes at the expense of customers’ desire for schedule reliability. <h3>Liners ‘no longer intolerant’ of long-term port congestion </h3>Carriers, especially at the higher end of the market, learned long ago that over-investment in things such as fuel to speed up and maintain schedule integrity was not typically rewarded by the market in the form of higher rates. That made carriers skeptical of the value of reliability, a theory that proved itself during and after COVID, when reliability crashed due to the idling of ships and containers, and yet carriers earned record profits during the period. They saw it again in 2024 and 2025 when profits were propped up by the 10% or so of capacity being taken out of the market due to another factor beyond their control — the attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Similarly, carriers are no longer as intolerant as they once were of growing long-term port congestion in Asia and Europe, seeing the upside in taking capacity out of the market. The amount of global container ship capacity removed due to port congestion is now 4% versus 2% pre-COVID, according to J.P. Morgan — hardly a negative issue for carriers staring at a costly, multi-year gap between supply and demand. But that gap is becoming hard to ignore. Carriers are preparing for a potentially prolonged downturn, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-intensify-cost-cutting-efforts-as-rates-slide-on-major-trades-6069811">cutting costs</a> and modeling out scenarios where rates sink well below current levels. In its update Tuesday, J.P. Morgan said volumes grew 4.5% in the first half of 2025 due to accelerated shipments caused by US tariffs, but the market is quickly cooling off. The bank expects market growth to slow to 1.8% in the third quarter and be flat in the fourth quarter, then grow 2% annually in 2026 and beyond based on its GDP growth forecasts. In 2025, it sees effective supply growth of 6.5% versus 2024. “Furthermore, we continue to expect capacity to return to the Suez Canal in 2026, which we believe will drive supply growth up to 9% [year over year],” the bank said. “If the trans-Suez route remains constrained, effective supply would likely still grow by 3%-5%, still putting pressure on rates.” It said the 4% of capacity removed due to port congestion has “normalized” and will not grow more pronounced, meaning less impact for carriers in mitigating overcapacity. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

It is becoming hard to shake the impression that container shipping is headed into a rocky stretch — for shippers and carriers alike. Sentiment heard with greater frequency from within the industry and from financial analysts holds that overcapacity will overwhelm constraints on capacity in a possible multi-year swoon, sending rates back to pre-COVID-19 levels and leading carriers to experience “deep losses,” according to J.P. Morgan. “We continue to see an industry that is suffering from material oversupply,” J.P. Morgan wrote in a market update Tuesday. “We see this as a clear issue that the industry will be forced to negotiate, even if diversions away from Suez last longer than we expect.” Thus, breaks on capacity driven by factors external to the industry, such as Red Sea diversions, as well as growing port congestion, both of which carriers have benefited enormously from since the pandemic, will be no match for the growing impact of 30% more capacity hitting the water in the coming years as the largest order book since 2009 is processed and delivered. For US shippers facing margin pressure due to tariffs, lower rates will be a welcome relief from the toxic dynamic since COVID, when rates soared while reliability collapsed. But there is a flip side to that: The rocky stretch for shippers will materialize as carriers react to unfavorable market dynamics, as they inevitably will. Carriers may be unable to neutralize the impact of overcapacity, but they can mitigate it, or at the very least will try. As fundamentals deteriorate, carriers will react in ways that will be less visible to shippers, such as by increasing the scrapping of older ships. But they will also react in ways that will directly affect shippers, who will likely experience a prolonged spate of blank sailings, network adjustments and slow steaming that result in longer transit times, causing a broader supply chain impact on inventories and lead times. That scenario will occur because, outside of the Gemini Cooperation alliance, which launched earlier this year on the premise of delivering 90%-plus schedule reliability to the market, the broader carrier industry is focused primarily on managing its network in support of its own financial well-being, even if doing so comes at the expense of customers’ desire for schedule reliability. Liners ‘no longer intolerant’ of long-term port congestion Carriers, especially at the higher end of the market, learned long ago that over-investment in things such as fuel to speed up and maintain schedule integrity was not typically rewarded by the market in the form of higher rates. That made carriers skeptical of the value of reliability, a theory that proved itself during and after COVID, when reliability crashed due to the idling of ships and containers, and yet carriers earned record profits during the period. They saw it again in 2024 and 2025 when profits were propped up by the 10% or so of capacity being taken out of the market due to another factor beyond their control — the attacks on shipping in the Red Sea. Similarly, carriers are no longer as intolerant as they once were of growing long-term port congestion in Asia and Europe, seeing the upside in taking capacity out of the market. The amount of global container ship capacity removed due to port congestion is now 4% versus 2% pre-COVID, according to J.P. Morgan — hardly a negative issue for carriers staring at a costly, multi-year gap between supply and demand. But that gap is becoming hard to ignore. Carriers are preparing for a potentially prolonged downturn, cutting costs and modeling out scenarios where rates sink well below current levels. In its update Tuesday, J.P. Morgan said volumes grew 4.5% in the first half of 2025 due to accelerated shipments caused by US tariffs, but the market is quickly cooling off. The bank expects market growth to slow to 1.8% in the third quarter and be flat in the fourth quarter, then grow 2% annually in 2026 and beyond based on its GDP growth forecasts. In 2025, it sees effective supply growth of 6.5% versus 2024. “Furthermore, we continue to expect capacity to return to the Suez Canal in 2026, which we believe will drive supply growth up to 9% [year over year],” the bank said. “If the trans-Suez route remains constrained, effective supply would likely still grow by 3%-5%, still putting pressure on rates.” It said the 4% of capacity removed due to port congestion has “normalized” and will not grow more pronounced, meaning less impact for carriers in mitigating overcapacity. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

DP World aims to run Carney-backed Montreal terminal

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Trans-Atlantic carriers limit capacity cuts despite ongoing rate weakness

Charleston’s Leatherman terminal eyes second berth by late 2026

Tight Asia feeder capacity causing disruption for export, import shippers

Recent Commentary

Ocean carriers are not helpless when it comes to managing capacity

Michigan inland port offers new option for Great Lakes containerized freight

Top 5 Most Read Stories