Breakbulk26-640X340-SunReg 2.jpg

Event Pop Up

Supply chain

Events

Gateway

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Special Reports

Press Releases

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

Truckload

Truck brokers

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Newsletters

Multimedia

White Papers

Intermodal providers

Commentary

Podcasts

Webcasts

Videos

Annual Review and Outlook

Top Rankings

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

Platts Containers Update

Custom Content

Resources

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Media Kit

Other

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

International rail

Top 100 US Exporters

Top 100 US Importers

Top 25 LTL Trucking Companies

Top 25 North American Ports

Top 25 Truckload Companies

Top 40 Container Carriers

Top 50 3PLs

Top 50 Global Container Ports

Top 50 Global Transportation Providers

Top 50 Trucking Companies

Editorial Calendar

Rail Directories

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Robert Erni, who will step into the CFO job after the ocean carrier reports fiscal 2025 results in February, has 30 years of experience in financial roles across the logistics industry. </div>

Robert Erni, who will step into the CFO job after the ocean carrier reports fiscal 2025 results in February, has 30 years of experience in financial roles across the logistics industry.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk on Friday announced a round of executive changes that include a new chief financial officer brought in from the forwarding world and the rotation of regional chiefs to new markets. The Copenhagen-based company said in a statement its board of directors picked Robert Erni as its new CFO, replacing Patrick Jany, who held the role for the last six years. Erni, who will step into the role after Maersk reports fiscal 2025 results on Feb. 5, has 30 years of experience in financial roles in the logistics industry. He spent two decades at Kuehne + Nagel, where he had roles across its global offices. Erni was also CFO at Panalpina until its acquisition by DSV and most recently CFO at German third-party logistics provider Dachser. Maersk Chief Executive Vincent Clerc said Erni’s “extensive international experience and strong leadership profile make him an excellent fit for the Maersk team.” Separately, Maersk also said three regional directors will be reshuffled to new offices at the start of 2026. Among those are Charles Van Der Steene, who has been Maersk’s president of North America since 2024 and has been with the carrier since 2011. Van Der Steene will take over as managing director for India following the departure of current director Richard Morgan. Maersk’s Asia-Pacific regional chief Ditlev Blicher will take over the North American offices, with Asia-Pacific regional CFO Scott Elliott taking over Blicher’s role. Maersk’s European offices will be headed by Guillaume Sauzedde, who joined Maersk in 2024. He will replace Aymeric Chandavoine, who is also leaving the company. Clerc said the change of regional chiefs reflects that each has “executed strongly against our strategic priorities ... and brought us to a point where we with confidence can make a reconfiguration of our regional leadership.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk on Friday announced a round of executive changes that include a new chief financial officer brought in from the forwarding world and the rotation of regional chiefs to new markets. The Copenhagen-based company said in a statement its board of directors picked Robert Erni as its new CFO, replacing Patrick Jany, who held the role for the last six years. Erni, who will step into the role after Maersk reports fiscal 2025 results on Feb. 5, has 30 years of experience in financial roles in the logistics industry. He spent two decades at Kuehne + Nagel, where he had roles across its global offices. Erni was also CFO at Panalpina until its acquisition by DSV and most recently CFO at German third-party logistics provider Dachser. Maersk Chief Executive Vincent Clerc said Erni’s “extensive international experience and strong leadership profile make him an excellent fit for the Maersk team.” Separately, Maersk also said three regional directors will be reshuffled to new offices at the start of 2026. Among those are Charles Van Der Steene, who has been Maersk’s president of North America since 2024 and has been with the carrier since 2011. Van Der Steene will take over as managing director for India following the departure of current director Richard Morgan. Maersk’s Asia-Pacific regional chief Ditlev Blicher will take over the North American offices, with Asia-Pacific regional CFO Scott Elliott taking over Blicher’s role. Maersk’s European offices will be headed by Guillaume Sauzedde, who joined Maersk in 2024. He will replace Aymeric Chandavoine, who is also leaving the company. Clerc said the change of regional chiefs reflects that each has “executed strongly against our strategic priorities ... and brought us to a point where we with confidence can make a reconfiguration of our regional leadership.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Maersk picks new CFO, reshuffles some regional chiefs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Noel Hacegaba says more efficient intermodal rail service to the US interior will help Long Beach grab a greater share of imports from Asia that move to major distribution hubs such as Dallas and Chicago.</div>

Noel Hacegaba says more efficient intermodal rail service to the US interior will help Long Beach grab a greater share of imports from Asia that move to major distribution hubs such as Dallas and Chicago.

<div class="phx-topic">Expanding the Port of Long Beach’s intermodal infrastructure and expediting the handoff of containers from marine terminals to trains will help the port expand its share of the discretionary cargo up for grabs among both West and East coast ports, Long Beach’s incoming CEO says. Noel Hacegaba, now the port’s chief operating officer, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hacegaba-nominated-to-be-port-of-long-beach-executive-director-6128762">was confirmed earlier this week by the Board of Harbor Commissioners as Long Beach’s next CEO</a>, effective Jan. 1 upon the retirement of current chief Mario Cordero. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6133963_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Hacegaba said the port that best handles inland point intermodal (IPI) freight in the coming years will be the port of choice on the Asia-US container trades. “For us, rail is the key to our growth,” he told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week. Long Beach competes with other West Coast ports and especially with East Coast ports in capturing Asia-origin containerized freight that is destined for major inland hubs such as Dallas, Memphis, Chicago, Atlanta and Columbus. That so-called discretionary cargo can move through either coast depending on the speed of transit from the Asian load port to the inland destination. Key to improving transit times from Long Beach will be the Pier B on-dock rail support facility, which began construction in 2024 and will be completed in phases into 2032. “Currently, the average time from ship to train is just under four days,” Hacegaba said. “With Pier B, our goal is to bring that down to 24 hours or less.” Containers moving by rail from terminals in the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex in November dwelled on the docks for an average of 3.73 days, according to the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Long Beach is emphasizing its financial support for rail by devoting more than $2 billion of its $3.2 billion capital expenditures in the coming decade to the mode. <h3>Shifting production in Asia a challenge for Long Beach </h3>Fully two-thirds of Long Beach’s containerized cargo moves to the eastern half of the US, mostly by rail. For shipments originating in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, West Coast ports generally have an advantage as trans-Pacific transit times are at least two weeks faster than shipping through the Panama and Suez canals. However, due to tariffs and other factors, production in Asia continues to shift to Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Ocean transit times from those regions to the East Coast favor load center ports such as New York-New Jersey, Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah. However, when shipping Asian imports on to the Midwest, the containers must move via truck or rail from East Coast ports to the inland destinations, which adds transit time to the all-in moves. Therefore, Hacegaba views those inland destinations as very much in play for West Coast ports, especially when the ports have sufficient on-dock and near-dock capacity and inland rail connectivity to handle the volumes. “That’s why what’s happening at Pier B is so important,” he said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="4c01bcc2-ee44-4296-b189-f980d2fcb434"></dynamic-object></div>When construction is completed in 2032, the Pier B on-dock rail support facility will double in size from 82 acres at present to 171 acres, according to Long Beach’s website. That will more than triple the volume of on-dock rail cargo the port can handle, from 1.5 million TEUs now to 4.7 million TEUs. Included in the project will be a depot for fueling and servicing up to 30 locomotives at the same time and a full-service staging area to assemble and break down trains up to 10,000 feet long. Pier B will allow for more efficient handling of IPI trains, which will improve the velocity of rail containers from the marine terminals and, in turn, will increase Long Beach’s total capacity, Hacegaba said. “Efficient velocity leads to greater port capacity,” he said. A second rail project that the port anticipates will achieve similar results is BNSF’s proposed $1.5 billion <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tpm25-bnsf-believes-barstow-hub-can-improve-service-to-smaller-markets-5955620">Barstow International Gateway</a>. The Barstow inland rail hub, located about 130 miles from Los Angeles-Long Beach, will handle transloaded as well as intact intermodal shipments bound for smaller inland markets. “We see many opportunities to pair with Barstow for greater reach inland,” Hacegaba said. “The key to growing our discretionary cargo is building inland rail connectivity,” he added. “It gives greater access, more efficient access, to importers and exporters in the heartland.” The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-enhances-intermodal-between-la-and-cincinnati-6121497">proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern railroads</a> could also bring new opportunities for intermodal rail connectivity to the Midwest, although Hacegaba said it is too early in the process to comment. “We will control what’s within our control,” he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Expanding the Port of Long Beach’s intermodal infrastructure and expediting the handoff of containers from marine terminals to trains will help the port expand its share of the discretionary cargo up for grabs among both West and East coast ports, Long Beach’s incoming CEO says. Noel Hacegaba, now the port’s chief operating officer, was confirmed earlier this week by the Board of Harbor Commissioners as Long Beach’s next CEO , effective Jan. 1 upon the retirement of current chief Mario Cordero. Hacegaba said the port that best handles inland point intermodal (IPI) freight in the coming years will be the port of choice on the Asia-US container trades. “For us, rail is the key to our growth,” he told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week. Long Beach competes with other West Coast ports and especially with East Coast ports in capturing Asia-origin containerized freight that is destined for major inland hubs such as Dallas, Memphis, Chicago, Atlanta and Columbus. That so-called discretionary cargo can move through either coast depending on the speed of transit from the Asian load port to the inland destination. Key to improving transit times from Long Beach will be the Pier B on-dock rail support facility, which began construction in 2024 and will be completed in phases into 2032. “Currently, the average time from ship to train is just under four days,” Hacegaba said. “With Pier B, our goal is to bring that down to 24 hours or less.” Containers moving by rail from terminals in the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex in November dwelled on the docks for an average of 3.73 days, according to the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association. Long Beach is emphasizing its financial support for rail by devoting more than $2 billion of its $3.2 billion capital expenditures in the coming decade to the mode. Shifting production in Asia a challenge for Long Beach Fully two-thirds of Long Beach’s containerized cargo moves to the eastern half of the US, mostly by rail. For shipments originating in China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, West Coast ports generally have an advantage as trans-Pacific transit times are at least two weeks faster than shipping through the Panama and Suez canals. However, due to tariffs and other factors, production in Asia continues to shift to Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Ocean transit times from those regions to the East Coast favor load center ports such as New York-New Jersey, Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah. However, when shipping Asian imports on to the Midwest, the containers must move via truck or rail from East Coast ports to the inland destinations, which adds transit time to the all-in moves. Therefore, Hacegaba views those inland destinations as very much in play for West Coast ports, especially when the ports have sufficient on-dock and near-dock capacity and inland rail connectivity to handle the volumes. “That’s why what’s happening at Pier B is so important,” he said. When construction is completed in 2032, the Pier B on-dock rail support facility will double in size from 82 acres at present to 171 acres, according to Long Beach’s website. That will more than triple the volume of on-dock rail cargo the port can handle, from 1.5 million TEUs now to 4.7 million TEUs. Included in the project will be a depot for fueling and servicing up to 30 locomotives at the same time and a full-service staging area to assemble and break down trains up to 10,000 feet long. Pier B will allow for more efficient handling of IPI trains, which will improve the velocity of rail containers from the marine terminals and, in turn, will increase Long Beach’s total capacity, Hacegaba said. “Efficient velocity leads to greater port capacity,” he said. A second rail project that the port anticipates will achieve similar results is BNSF’s proposed $1.5 billion Barstow International Gateway . The Barstow inland rail hub, located about 130 miles from Los Angeles-Long Beach, will handle transloaded as well as intact intermodal shipments bound for smaller inland markets. “We see many opportunities to pair with Barstow for greater reach inland,” Hacegaba said. “The key to growing our discretionary cargo is building inland rail connectivity,” he added. “It gives greater access, more efficient access, to importers and exporters in the heartland.” The proposed merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern railroads could also bring new opportunities for intermodal rail connectivity to the Midwest, although Hacegaba said it is too early in the process to comment. “We will control what’s within our control,” he said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Inland rail connectivity key to Port of Long Beach growth: new CEO

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued a report Friday that found terminal operators were making “historic” profits while their investment in infrastructure lagged far behind.</div>

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued a report Friday that found terminal operators were making “historic” profits while their investment in infrastructure lagged far behind.

<div class="phx-topic">Australian shipper groups are welcoming suggestions by the country’s competition watchdog that government policy or regulatory changes are likely needed to rein in soaring terminal access charges and related fees levied by terminal operators. The proposals were made by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in its latest container stevedoring monitoring report published Friday, which showed terminal operators “are charging record high prices and making historic profits.” That was happening even though there was “significant spare capacity in ports” and costs and productivity remain relatively stable, the report added. “A government policy or regulatory response is likely required to address apparent market failures and improve Australia’s container freight supply chain to the benefit of households and businesses,” the commission said. “Stevedores are now charging a higher total price per container, in real terms, than at any time since the ACCC began monitoring the container stevedoring industry 27 years ago.” The commission plans to discuss the report’s findings and potential follow-up action with federal government officials early next year. “The ACCC has now confirmed what industry has been warning about for years — stevedores are ramping up prices in an environment where costs are stable, productivity has gone nowhere, and terminals are sitting on spare capacity,” said Tom Jensen, general manager for freight policy and operations at the Australian shippers’ group Freight &amp; Trade Alliance (FTA). FTA members include meat, grain and dairy exporters, as well as retailers and industrial equipment companies. “The ACCC has effectively said the quiet part out loud — this market isn’t working,” added Jensen, who also represents the Australian Peak Shippers’ Association. “The regulator has identified the problem, quantified it, and flagged the solution. What’s needed now is for government to act.” <h3>Charges surpass investments </h3>Highlighting the surge in terminal earnings, the ACCC’s 145-page report said operators saw operating profits climb to $538 million (A$809 million) in the 2024–25 financial year, an increase of 131% over five years. Operating margins climbed to a historic high of 34.8% in the same period, the report added. ACCC data showed terminal operators generated $426 million in terminal access charges in 2024–25 and more than $2 billion since 2017–18. That was 2.5 times the total investment made by terminal operators in the same period. “When terminal access charges alone are worth two-and-a-half times the total investment made by terminals, it’s clear these fees have become a profit lever, not a cost recovery tool,” Jensen said. The commission’s report also made clear that shippers, cargo owners and transport interests have little choice but to pay the fees levied by terminal operators, leading to a “likely market failure in the stevedoring industry” and ultimately hurting businesses and consumers. “The ACCC considers that these factors allow stevedores to increase landside charges with limited risk, irrespective of changes in demand, terminal capacity, costs or quality of service,” the report said. “...Where this results in higher total prices and reduced efficiency, this has the potential to be detrimental to Australian businesses and consumers.” The figures in the report do not take into account <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/australian-shipper-groups-call-for-legal-curbs-on-terminal-operator-fee-hikes-6108993">the latest round of increases in terminal access charges (TAC) and empty container fees</a> that operators, including DP World, Patrick Terminals, and Victoria International Container Terminal, will introduce from Jan. 1. Hutchison Port Holdings is set to raise its charges from Feb. 1. The terminal companies did not immediately respond to the ACCC’s report. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Australian shipper groups are welcoming suggestions by the country’s competition watchdog that government policy or regulatory changes are likely needed to rein in soaring terminal access charges and related fees levied by terminal operators. The proposals were made by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in its latest container stevedoring monitoring report published Friday, which showed terminal operators “are charging record high prices and making historic profits.” That was happening even though there was “significant spare capacity in ports” and costs and productivity remain relatively stable, the report added. “A government policy or regulatory response is likely required to address apparent market failures and improve Australia’s container freight supply chain to the benefit of households and businesses,” the commission said. “Stevedores are now charging a higher total price per container, in real terms, than at any time since the ACCC began monitoring the container stevedoring industry 27 years ago.” The commission plans to discuss the report’s findings and potential follow-up action with federal government officials early next year. “The ACCC has now confirmed what industry has been warning about for years — stevedores are ramping up prices in an environment where costs are stable, productivity has gone nowhere, and terminals are sitting on spare capacity,” said Tom Jensen, general manager for freight policy and operations at the Australian shippers’ group Freight & Trade Alliance (FTA). FTA members include meat, grain and dairy exporters, as well as retailers and industrial equipment companies. “The ACCC has effectively said the quiet part out loud — this market isn’t working,” added Jensen, who also represents the Australian Peak Shippers’ Association. “The regulator has identified the problem, quantified it, and flagged the solution. What’s needed now is for government to act.” Charges surpass investments Highlighting the surge in terminal earnings, the ACCC’s 145-page report said operators saw operating profits climb to $538 million (A$809 million) in the 2024–25 financial year, an increase of 131% over five years. Operating margins climbed to a historic high of 34.8% in the same period, the report added. ACCC data showed terminal operators generated $426 million in terminal access charges in 2024–25 and more than $2 billion since 2017–18. That was 2.5 times the total investment made by terminal operators in the same period. “When terminal access charges alone are worth two-and-a-half times the total investment made by terminals, it’s clear these fees have become a profit lever, not a cost recovery tool,” Jensen said. The commission’s report also made clear that shippers, cargo owners and transport interests have little choice but to pay the fees levied by terminal operators, leading to a “likely market failure in the stevedoring industry” and ultimately hurting businesses and consumers. “The ACCC considers that these factors allow stevedores to increase landside charges with limited risk, irrespective of changes in demand, terminal capacity, costs or quality of service,” the report said. “...Where this results in higher total prices and reduced efficiency, this has the potential to be detrimental to Australian businesses and consumers.” The figures in the report do not take into account the latest round of increases in terminal access charges (TAC) and empty container fees that operators, including DP World, Patrick Terminals, and Victoria International Container Terminal, will introduce from Jan. 1. Hutchison Port Holdings is set to raise its charges from Feb. 1. The terminal companies did not immediately respond to the ACCC’s report. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Australian government action needed to curb soaring terminal charges: regulator

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Hamburg-based carrier is investing $500 million on eight newbuilds and adding 14 newbuild charters, with the overall goal of making its fleet more fuel efficient and reducing carbon dioxide emissions. </div>

The Hamburg-based carrier is investing $500 million on eight newbuilds and adding 14 newbuild charters, with the overall goal of making its fleet more fuel efficient and reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd is making its biggest bet on methanol’s future as a ship fuel with plans to spend $500 million building eight dual-fuel feeder vessels, adding to its alternative fuel fleet that currently leans on liquefied natural gas (LNG). The carrier said in a statement Friday it has contracted with Chinese shipyard CIMC Raffles for the construction of the eight newbuilds, which will have 4,500-TEU capacity. The ships are expected to be delivered in 2028 and 2029. The dual-fuel ships are 30% more efficient than older vessels, Hapag-Lloyd said, noting that under methanol propulsion, the ships will lower their carbon dioxide output by 350,000 metric tons per year, which is the output of approximately 76,000 vehicles. The newbuild order will be Hapag-Lloyd’s second big move into methanol. A year ago, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-joins-maersk-in-chinese-methanol-supply-deal-5866031">it announced plans to retrofit five of its post-Panamax chartered ships</a> into dual-fuel methanol, along with a long-term supply deal with Chinese methanol producer Goldwind. In addition to the eight newbuilds, Hapag-Lloyd said it entered long-term charters on another 14 newbuilds between 1,800 TEUs and 4,500 TEUs of capacity. CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said in the statement the newbuilds and new charters will put Hapag-Lloyd on track to meet the International Maritime Organization’s target for net-zero shipping emissions by 2045. “The new ships will help replace older tonnage, further decarbonize the Hapag-Lloyd fleet, and reduce our dependence on the charter market,” Habben-Jansen said. “What’s more, operating these state-of-the-art ships will be much more cost-efficient.” <h3>LNG in the mix </h3>Hapag-Lloyd’s main bet so far has been LNG, with some 37 dual-fuel vessels delivered or on order. That fuel appears to have more of a place in mainline trades, with LNG-capable vessels in the 9,100-TEU to 23,800-TEU class. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="82b6ff12-d7ca-420a-abbe-7b9998b29e56"></dynamic-object></div>While LNG has gained a slight edge as far as alternative fuels, those fuels still comprise a tiny portion of the operational fleet. There are some 218 LNG-capable container ships currently operating, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, representing 3.4% of all ships in operation. Methanol-ready ships total 42, or less than 1%. But dual-fuel vessels make up over half of the current order book, illustrating the future for alternative fuels. Sea-web data shows there are 362 vessels on order that are LNG-capable, about 40% of the total order book. Methanol-capable vessels on order total 151, representing 17% of the order book. On a capacity basis, LNG represents 4.1 million TEUs, with methanol at 2.1 million TEUs, according to Sea-web. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd is making its biggest bet on methanol’s future as a ship fuel with plans to spend $500 million building eight dual-fuel feeder vessels, adding to its alternative fuel fleet that currently leans on liquefied natural gas (LNG). The carrier said in a statement Friday it has contracted with Chinese shipyard CIMC Raffles for the construction of the eight newbuilds, which will have 4,500-TEU capacity. The ships are expected to be delivered in 2028 and 2029. The dual-fuel ships are 30% more efficient than older vessels, Hapag-Lloyd said, noting that under methanol propulsion, the ships will lower their carbon dioxide output by 350,000 metric tons per year, which is the output of approximately 76,000 vehicles. The newbuild order will be Hapag-Lloyd’s second big move into methanol. A year ago, it announced plans to retrofit five of its post-Panamax chartered ships into dual-fuel methanol, along with a long-term supply deal with Chinese methanol producer Goldwind. In addition to the eight newbuilds, Hapag-Lloyd said it entered long-term charters on another 14 newbuilds between 1,800 TEUs and 4,500 TEUs of capacity. CEO Rolf Habben Jansen said in the statement the newbuilds and new charters will put Hapag-Lloyd on track to meet the International Maritime Organization’s target for net-zero shipping emissions by 2045. “The new ships will help replace older tonnage, further decarbonize the Hapag-Lloyd fleet, and reduce our dependence on the charter market,” Habben-Jansen said. “What’s more, operating these state-of-the-art ships will be much more cost-efficient.” LNG in the mix Hapag-Lloyd’s main bet so far has been LNG, with some 37 dual-fuel vessels delivered or on order. That fuel appears to have more of a place in mainline trades, with LNG-capable vessels in the 9,100-TEU to 23,800-TEU class. While LNG has gained a slight edge as far as alternative fuels, those fuels still comprise a tiny portion of the operational fleet. There are some 218 LNG-capable container ships currently operating, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, representing 3.4% of all ships in operation. Methanol-ready ships total 42, or less than 1%. But dual-fuel vessels make up over half of the current order book, illustrating the future for alternative fuels. Sea-web data shows there are 362 vessels on order that are LNG-capable, about 40% of the total order book. Methanol-capable vessels on order total 151, representing 17% of the order book. On a capacity basis, LNG represents 4.1 million TEUs, with methanol at 2.1 million TEUs, according to Sea-web. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Hapag-Lloyd to expand feeder fleet with new methanol-ready ships

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The two Japanese vehicle carriers are the last to agree to a settlement figure in a long-running price-fixing case. </div>

The two Japanese vehicle carriers are the last to agree to a settlement figure in a long-running price-fixing case.

<div class="phx-topic">Two of Japan’s largest vehicle carrier operators, NYK and Mitsui OSK Lines, will pay $72 million (£54 million) to settle a collective action brought over high shipment fees for vehicles imported to Britain.  Mark McLaren, the lead attorney who brought the action on behalf of businesses and consumers, said the settlement is expected to be approved by Britain’s Competition Appeal Tribunal at a hearing in January. The settlement followed a trial against MOL and NYK held by the tribunal that started last January and lasted a total of nine weeks. The carriers were the last to finalize a settlement in the case after “K” Line and Wallenius Wilhelmsen and its South Korean affiliate EUKOR agreed to pay a combined $50 million in 2024, while CSAV paid $2 million in 2023. The carriers had been facing claims totaling $201 million for allegedly fixing prices for vehicle shipments to the UK between October 2006 and September 2015. Law firm Scott + Scott, which helped bring the action, claimed the five carriers were involved in a cartel that affected shipments of 17 million new automobiles and vans brought to the UK from a raft of major brands, including BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen. McLaren, who launched the class action case five years ago, said the settlement “not only resolves wrongful anti-competitive, cartelist actions, but also allows for class members to finally be compensated for their financial losses.” NYK and MOL did not respond to requests for comment. The action in Britain is the latest price collusion case involving vehicle carrier operators over the last 10 years, with the US Department of Justice and authorities in Australia and Mexico all imposing fines for alleged price collusion on vehicle shipments. <h3>Demand growth expected to continue </h3>The settlement comes as light vehicle sales are expected to continue to climb this year even as China, already the world’s largest light vehicle exporter, accelerates overseas manufacturing in the face of tariff pressures. Global light vehicle sales are set to reach 90 million units this year, up 1.5% compared with 2024, according to figures from S&amp;P Global Mobility and ING Research. Of these, more than 15 million will be shipped overseas, with China accounting for more than 6.5 million units this year, according to S&amp;P Global Mobility figures. Highlighting the shift to overseas manufacturing, Abby Chun Tu, S&amp;P Global Mobility’s principal research analyst, said China’s five largest light vehicle exporters — BYD, Chery, Changan, SAIC and Geely — have expanded manufacturing operations to 19 sites in Southeast and Central Asia over the past three years to offset tariffs and higher costs. “The combined output of new energy vehicles [cars powered by alternative fuels] by Chinese car manufacturers in ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] is expected to account for 68% of the Southeast Asia region’s total new energy vehicle production by 2030 — a jump from 20% in 2024,” she said, quoting S&amp;P Global Mobility’s light-vehicle production forecast.  Chun Tu said BYD is also building two electric vehicle manufacturing plants in Europe to circumvent the region’s tariffs on imported Chinese-built EVs. Other automakers such as Chery, Geely and Leapmotor have launched joint ventures with local manufacturers in Spain, Poland, Malaysia and Brazil, she said in a Nov. 24 commentary.   Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Two of Japan’s largest vehicle carrier operators, NYK and Mitsui OSK Lines, will pay $72 million (£54 million) to settle a collective action brought over high shipment fees for vehicles imported to Britain.  Mark McLaren, the lead attorney who brought the action on behalf of businesses and consumers, said the settlement is expected to be approved by Britain’s Competition Appeal Tribunal at a hearing in January. The settlement followed a trial against MOL and NYK held by the tribunal that started last January and lasted a total of nine weeks. The carriers were the last to finalize a settlement in the case after “K” Line and Wallenius Wilhelmsen and its South Korean affiliate EUKOR agreed to pay a combined $50 million in 2024, while CSAV paid $2 million in 2023. The carriers had been facing claims totaling $201 million for allegedly fixing prices for vehicle shipments to the UK between October 2006 and September 2015. Law firm Scott + Scott, which helped bring the action, claimed the five carriers were involved in a cartel that affected shipments of 17 million new automobiles and vans brought to the UK from a raft of major brands, including BMW, Ford, Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, Toyota and Volkswagen. McLaren, who launched the class action case five years ago, said the settlement “not only resolves wrongful anti-competitive, cartelist actions, but also allows for class members to finally be compensated for their financial losses.” NYK and MOL did not respond to requests for comment. The action in Britain is the latest price collusion case involving vehicle carrier operators over the last 10 years, with the US Department of Justice and authorities in Australia and Mexico all imposing fines for alleged price collusion on vehicle shipments. Demand growth expected to continue The settlement comes as light vehicle sales are expected to continue to climb this year even as China, already the world’s largest light vehicle exporter, accelerates overseas manufacturing in the face of tariff pressures. Global light vehicle sales are set to reach 90 million units this year, up 1.5% compared with 2024, according to figures from S&P Global Mobility and ING Research. Of these, more than 15 million will be shipped overseas, with China accounting for more than 6.5 million units this year, according to S&P Global Mobility figures. Highlighting the shift to overseas manufacturing, Abby Chun Tu, S&P Global Mobility’s principal research analyst, said China’s five largest light vehicle exporters — BYD, Chery, Changan, SAIC and Geely — have expanded manufacturing operations to 19 sites in Southeast and Central Asia over the past three years to offset tariffs and higher costs. “The combined output of new energy vehicles [cars powered by alternative fuels] by Chinese car manufacturers in ASEAN [the Association of Southeast Asian Nations] is expected to account for 68% of the Southeast Asia region’s total new energy vehicle production by 2030 — a jump from 20% in 2024,” she said, quoting S&P Global Mobility’s light-vehicle production forecast.  Chun Tu said BYD is also building two electric vehicle manufacturing plants in Europe to circumvent the region’s tariffs on imported Chinese-built EVs. Other automakers such as Chery, Geely and Leapmotor have launched joint ventures with local manufacturers in Spain, Poland, Malaysia and Brazil, she said in a Nov. 24 commentary.   Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

NYK, MOL to pay $72 million to settle UK vehicle shipment claims

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A boost in project cargo demand is expected as delayed mining projects in the country start to come onstream in the coming years. </div>

A boost in project cargo demand is expected as delayed mining projects in the country start to come onstream in the coming years.

<div class="phx-topic">The release of several previously stalled permits is setting up a mining boom across Mexico that could trigger a wave of breakbulk and project cargo activity. Restarting these mine projects could necessitate shipments of power generation equipment, heavy machinery and other project cargo in the near term, while mine operations and production could result in ongoing shipments of minerals and maintenance supplies. Over $11 billion in mining projects was reactivated in November following Mexican federal policy changes related to the approval of environmental and water permits needed for the projects to move forward. The mining projects are focused in the Mexican states of Zacatecas, Sonora, Chihuahua and Durango. Mexico is a key global producer of gold, copper, zinc and critical minerals. Fernando Aboitiz, head of the Coordination Unit for Extractive Industries at Mexico’s Ministry of Economy, told attendees at the International Mining Convention 2025 in Acapulco in November that 110 of 176 previously blocked permits in the mining sector have been approved so far, leaving 66 still pending. Aboitiz said the backlog could be cleared by mid-2026. According to the latest data from Mexican industry association Cámara Minera de Mexico (CAMIMEX), there were 574 mining projects in 30 states in Mexico in 2024. Of those, 225 were in the exploration phase, another 225 were in the production phase, 27 were in development, 85 were suspended, and 12 were in the closure phase. <h3>‘Sustained surge’ in cargo expected </h3>Juan Ignacio Lopez, CEO of King Ocean Gulf Alliance LLC (KOGA), a Houston-based multipurpose carrier that transports cargoes including mining supplies, steel, bulk chemicals, power generation equipment, and heavy machinery, told the Journal of Commerce that he anticipates growth in both short- and long-term cargo activity as Mexico’s mining activity picks up. “The good thing about a mining boom is that it creates a sustained surge in breakbulk and project cargo demands,” he said. Constructing these mines will require significant amounts of structural steel, heavy equipment for processing and excavating, and power generation equipment for the plants that supply power to the mines, Lopez said. “For us in particular, I think we’ll see increased moves of large mining equipment — from the US, from Brazil, Columbia and Panama — and higher volumes of cargo moving through the main Mexican ports for mining,” he said, citing the ports of Altamira and Veracruz along the Gulf and Manzanillo on the Pacific. Once the mines begin operations, Lopez expects to see more outbound shipments of minerals and other commodities. “That will also allow us to secure some contracts that will tie us to these mines and the suppliers, and to have a regular flow of those cargo movements between the Americas and into and out of Mexico,” he said. The mines will need to consistently import consumables to operate, Lopez said. That includes regularly replacing trucks, tires and spare parts for heavy equipment, while coal-burning power plants will require continuous shipments of coal and other supplies. “Those are things we’ll continuously move while the mine is working,” he said. As the mines produce minerals and other commodities, that output will need to be transported. “That creates an opportunity for carriers to move thousands of tons of minerals coming out of those mines,” Lopez said. Before mining activity picks up, carriers will need to prepare for the mines’ long-term cargo needs by securing regular sailings into and out of Mexico, Lopez said. That’s because whereas mine construction will produce enough project cargo and heavy equipment to fill up ships in the short term, sustaining operational needs and production output will require smaller shipments going to and from these mines. “Those are not volumes that can justify an entire ship. So you want to start looking for base cargoes that will put you in Mexico with certain regularity,” Lopez said, adding that KOGA already has regular customers in Mexico that ship other commodities. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

The release of several previously stalled permits is setting up a mining boom across Mexico that could trigger a wave of breakbulk and project cargo activity. Restarting these mine projects could necessitate shipments of power generation equipment, heavy machinery and other project cargo in the near term, while mine operations and production could result in ongoing shipments of minerals and maintenance supplies. Over $11 billion in mining projects was reactivated in November following Mexican federal policy changes related to the approval of environmental and water permits needed for the projects to move forward. The mining projects are focused in the Mexican states of Zacatecas, Sonora, Chihuahua and Durango. Mexico is a key global producer of gold, copper, zinc and critical minerals. Fernando Aboitiz, head of the Coordination Unit for Extractive Industries at Mexico’s Ministry of Economy, told attendees at the International Mining Convention 2025 in Acapulco in November that 110 of 176 previously blocked permits in the mining sector have been approved so far, leaving 66 still pending. Aboitiz said the backlog could be cleared by mid-2026. According to the latest data from Mexican industry association Cámara Minera de Mexico (CAMIMEX), there were 574 mining projects in 30 states in Mexico in 2024. Of those, 225 were in the exploration phase, another 225 were in the production phase, 27 were in development, 85 were suspended, and 12 were in the closure phase. ‘Sustained surge’ in cargo expected Juan Ignacio Lopez, CEO of King Ocean Gulf Alliance LLC (KOGA), a Houston-based multipurpose carrier that transports cargoes including mining supplies, steel, bulk chemicals, power generation equipment, and heavy machinery, told the Journal of Commerce that he anticipates growth in both short- and long-term cargo activity as Mexico’s mining activity picks up. “The good thing about a mining boom is that it creates a sustained surge in breakbulk and project cargo demands,” he said. Constructing these mines will require significant amounts of structural steel, heavy equipment for processing and excavating, and power generation equipment for the plants that supply power to the mines, Lopez said. “For us in particular, I think we’ll see increased moves of large mining equipment — from the US, from Brazil, Columbia and Panama — and higher volumes of cargo moving through the main Mexican ports for mining,” he said, citing the ports of Altamira and Veracruz along the Gulf and Manzanillo on the Pacific. Once the mines begin operations, Lopez expects to see more outbound shipments of minerals and other commodities. “That will also allow us to secure some contracts that will tie us to these mines and the suppliers, and to have a regular flow of those cargo movements between the Americas and into and out of Mexico,” he said. The mines will need to consistently import consumables to operate, Lopez said. That includes regularly replacing trucks, tires and spare parts for heavy equipment, while coal-burning power plants will require continuous shipments of coal and other supplies. “Those are things we’ll continuously move while the mine is working,” he said. As the mines produce minerals and other commodities, that output will need to be transported. “That creates an opportunity for carriers to move thousands of tons of minerals coming out of those mines,” Lopez said. Before mining activity picks up, carriers will need to prepare for the mines’ long-term cargo needs by securing regular sailings into and out of Mexico, Lopez said. That’s because whereas mine construction will produce enough project cargo and heavy equipment to fill up ships in the short term, sustaining operational needs and production output will require smaller shipments going to and from these mines. “Those are not volumes that can justify an entire ship. So you want to start looking for base cargoes that will put you in Mexico with certain regularity,” Lopez said, adding that KOGA already has regular customers in Mexico that ship other commodities. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Policy shift clears way for surge in Mexican mining projects, cargo activity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Until the whole container shipping industry improves its reliability, the scope for any form of premium/bonus for above-target performance is low, writes John McCauley. </div>

Until the whole container shipping industry improves its reliability, the scope for any form of premium/bonus for above-target performance is low, writes John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">We are a strange bunch, we logisticians. One of our self-designed millstones is our key definition of success, and it is always unattainable either at an individual or aggregate level. For container shipping, I refer to on-time arrival (OTA), although for other modes this is usually on-time delivery. We measure on-time arrival as a percentage, with the only feasible outcome to fail; the only question is by how much. Those odds aren’t acceptable outside of shipping. The analogy frequently used is patient operation success in a hospital. If a patient operation is successful 999 times out of 1,000, do we want to be the one that didn’t make it? But seriously, as pertains to container shipping, there are factors beyond the control of the carrier, including severe weather at ports and on the water and strikes and other labor disruptions. That means a 100% on-time arrival within 24 hours of schedule is unachievable on a volume and consistent basis. However, levels of 60% to 65% at the industry level, with no historical precedent for greater achievement nor likelihood of ever getting there, mean we are in a doom loop of trying, other than hoping, to make it better. This is despite <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/value-unlocked-by-gemini-will-clear-path-for-premium-charge-maersk-ceo-6111339">the admirable efforts of the Gemini Cooperation alliance</a> of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd to achieve superior reliability. Which leads to my observations about the suggestions of a premium for higher reliability levels, and particularly that carriers would want to claw back some of the benefits of lower inventory costs for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs). <h3>A few obstacles </h3>Firstly, all BCOs will keep a mix of carriers (dual or multi-sourcing) for multiple reasons, including schedule, risk of losing space, price, etc., which means that while one carrier may achieve above-market reliability, their benefit to BCOs will be dragged down by the performance of their other choices in the industry. As an example, Carrier A achieves 90% reliability, Carrier B 60%. You have to program your planning systems for one, not multiple, delivery durations. Which do you choose? None are ideal, too long and you unnecessarily extend inventory carry, but if those same shipments arrive early, you need warehousing. Secondly, what about all the other problems caused by poor reliability? Stock-outs, air freight, extra staffing, warehousing and more. Focusing on inventory highlights a cash flow problem; many of the others are either opportunity costs (stock-outs, lost sales) or real costs (additional warehousing, staffing, sales contract non-compliance). I am not at all saying that container shipping is responsible for all of this, but it is an important contributor to the problem. Thirdly, any premium/bonus for above-target performance must surely have an offset for under-performance. And by this I don’t mean adjusted performance taking account of externalities. The non-performance must be explanation/excuse agnostic, meaning if the one-time arrival is not met, then this is a fail. In other modes of transport, this is the norm and why targets are never set at 100% even for best-in-class. Finally, I am all for improved reliability; most actors in container shipping share that view. How to get there is tricky and requires strategic intent. Many carriers will see it as unachievable and not worth the effort given the likelihood of high uncertainty of any reward other than some degree of customer stickiness. Until the whole industry improves its reliability, the scope for any form of premium/bonus for above-target performance is low. The only way I can see it working is to have a premium attached to index-linked contracts, and even then, that must be linked to performance against an agreed target level with penalties. Given the favorable buy-side economics in current contracting, this may be one for carriers to put on the backburner. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>. </div>

We are a strange bunch, we logisticians. One of our self-designed millstones is our key definition of success, and it is always unattainable either at an individual or aggregate level. For container shipping, I refer to on-time arrival (OTA), although for other modes this is usually on-time delivery. We measure on-time arrival as a percentage, with the only feasible outcome to fail; the only question is by how much. Those odds aren’t acceptable outside of shipping. The analogy frequently used is patient operation success in a hospital. If a patient operation is successful 999 times out of 1,000, do we want to be the one that didn’t make it? But seriously, as pertains to container shipping, there are factors beyond the control of the carrier, including severe weather at ports and on the water and strikes and other labor disruptions. That means a 100% on-time arrival within 24 hours of schedule is unachievable on a volume and consistent basis. However, levels of 60% to 65% at the industry level, with no historical precedent for greater achievement nor likelihood of ever getting there, mean we are in a doom loop of trying, other than hoping, to make it better. This is despite the admirable efforts of the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd to achieve superior reliability. Which leads to my observations about the suggestions of a premium for higher reliability levels, and particularly that carriers would want to claw back some of the benefits of lower inventory costs for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs). A few obstacles Firstly, all BCOs will keep a mix of carriers (dual or multi-sourcing) for multiple reasons, including schedule, risk of losing space, price, etc., which means that while one carrier may achieve above-market reliability, their benefit to BCOs will be dragged down by the performance of their other choices in the industry. As an example, Carrier A achieves 90% reliability, Carrier B 60%. You have to program your planning systems for one, not multiple, delivery durations. Which do you choose? None are ideal, too long and you unnecessarily extend inventory carry, but if those same shipments arrive early, you need warehousing. Secondly, what about all the other problems caused by poor reliability? Stock-outs, air freight, extra staffing, warehousing and more. Focusing on inventory highlights a cash flow problem; many of the others are either opportunity costs (stock-outs, lost sales) or real costs (additional warehousing, staffing, sales contract non-compliance). I am not at all saying that container shipping is responsible for all of this, but it is an important contributor to the problem. Thirdly, any premium/bonus for above-target performance must surely have an offset for under-performance. And by this I don’t mean adjusted performance taking account of externalities. The non-performance must be explanation/excuse agnostic, meaning if the one-time arrival is not met, then this is a fail. In other modes of transport, this is the norm and why targets are never set at 100% even for best-in-class. Finally, I am all for improved reliability; most actors in container shipping share that view. How to get there is tricky and requires strategic intent. Many carriers will see it as unachievable and not worth the effort given the likelihood of high uncertainty of any reward other than some degree of customer stickiness. Until the whole industry improves its reliability, the scope for any form of premium/bonus for above-target performance is low. The only way I can see it working is to have a premium attached to index-linked contracts, and even then, that must be linked to performance against an agreed target level with penalties. Given the favorable buy-side economics in current contracting, this may be one for carriers to put on the backburner. John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Premium pricing linked to vessel schedule reliability faces rough waters

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger, the US rail industry finds itself facing a new future but the same historical set of challenges.</div>

With the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger, the US rail industry finds itself facing a new future but the same historical set of challenges.

<div class="phx-topic">Oct. 14 marked the 45th anniversary of President Jimmy Carter signing The Harley O. Staggers Rail Act of 1980, named for the chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (today the Committee on Energy and Commerce). However, the real “heavy lifting” to get the bill passed was by Rep. Jim Florio, the New Jersey Democrat who chaired the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) frequently points out how, by 1980, the railroad industry was on the brink of collapse until Congress passed bipartisan legislation to partially deregulate the industry, thereby allowing market-driven pricing, customer-specific contracts and the ability to shed unprofitable routes. However, this neglects the tortured decade of the 1970s when Congress was repeatedly drawn into legislating railroad matters. It started with The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, creating Amtrak. This relieved private railroads from their losses operating passenger service. But it was not enough to save Penn Central, so Congress passed the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (the “3R Act”) to salvage viable freight operations from Penn Central and other failing rail lines in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest. It created the United States Railway Association (USRA) to develop a “Final System Plan” for the reorganization into a single entity — Conrail. Finally, The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (The “4R Act”) approved the Final System Plan, enabling Conrail to start operations on April 1, 1976. It provided what it thought was sufficient funding — an initial federal “investment” of $2.026 billion for Conrail to acquire the assets of bankrupt Northeast and Midwest railroads and get its operations started. This funding turned out to be insufficient. Conrail subsequently sought and received an additional $3 billion. However, by 1979, it had almost exhausted that amount. Under the leadership of a new CEO, L. Stanley Crane, Conrail claimed that it could succeed as a private entity if the rail marketplace was deregulated. <h3>Regulation intended to perpetuate monopolies </h3>Railroads had been operating under a regulated system since the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. This legislation was an early initiative of the Progressive era and preceded other efforts at regulation, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act three years later. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) became the model for rate-of-return regulation of public utilities. The microeconomic theory is that a monopoly business can be regulated by having the government control the prices charged by the market to a level equal to the efficient costs of production, plus a government-permitted rate of return on capital. This model became the norm for oversight of many asset-based, network-operating businesses such as communications, utilities, and other transportation modes. What is overlooked by many is that — by design — regulation was intended to perpetuate monopolies because it ensured that excess capacity would be available in the event of war or other national emergencies. The monopoly license was maintained through a series of operating authorities that determined which providers could serve which markets. Consumers paid more — but hopefully not too much more. This legislation was passed when railroads were the primary means of freight and passenger transportation. However, the subsequent development of the Interstate Highway System and air traffic changed that dominant position. Meanwhile, the onset of persistent stagflation during the 1970s encouraged deregulatory efforts in many regulated industries. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was a predecessor. However, the Interstate Commerce Commission, under Chairman Dan O’Neal, had already taken initiatives, permitted by the 4R Act, to deregulate certain rail sectors, such as intermodal. <h3>Key components of Staggers Act </h3>The Staggers Act had three key components: Railroads were able to negotiate contracts with a customer at market-based rates; reduced regulatory oversight over mergers and abandonments was enacted; and a regulatory backstop was established to protect shippers lacking effective competition. These legislative efforts completely inverted the commercial process. Regulation was cost-based pricing. Shippers were price takers. Deregulation begat price-based costing. The market determined the competitive price, and the carrier needed to find a way to produce the service so as to be profitable. This was accomplished in numerous ways: Railroad mergers enabled increased economies of scale and reduced overhead; technology supported cost reductions (e.g., end of train devices replacing the caboose); significant amounts of the networks were spun off to short line operations; and a reduction in train crew size from five to two and extending crew districts reduced costs significantly. The final step of this reduction required Congressional help in 1991, with the imposition of Presidential Emergency Board 219. But downsizing could only do so much. Topline growth was necessary. Into this opportunity stepped intermodal. As international traffic grew with globalization, a large part of the volume growth came from ocean carriers. Traditional domestic customers increased their volume, and major new customers, such as J.B. Hunt, entered as well. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Railroads filled excess capacity, and intermodal customers enjoyed reliable and cost-effective service. Everything went well until the summer of 1993. The weather that summer caused terrible service problems. As an industry, we missed the wakeup call. We were too eager to attribute the problems to a fluke weather condition, not recognizing that capacity utilization was nearing maximum. Since then, the industry has been dealing with the challenge of increasing the top and bottom lines simultaneously. This has frequently proven elusive. The advent of activist investors has only raised the stakes. With the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger, the industry finds itself facing a new future but the same historical set of challenges. In retrospect, it is clear to see how we got here, but it is less clear where we are going. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>.</div>

Oct. 14 marked the 45th anniversary of President Jimmy Carter signing The Harley O. Staggers Rail Act of 1980, named for the chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (today the Committee on Energy and Commerce). However, the real “heavy lifting” to get the bill passed was by Rep. Jim Florio, the New Jersey Democrat who chaired the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Transportation, and Tourism. The Association of American Railroads (AAR) frequently points out how, by 1980, the railroad industry was on the brink of collapse until Congress passed bipartisan legislation to partially deregulate the industry, thereby allowing market-driven pricing, customer-specific contracts and the ability to shed unprofitable routes. However, this neglects the tortured decade of the 1970s when Congress was repeatedly drawn into legislating railroad matters. It started with The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970, creating Amtrak. This relieved private railroads from their losses operating passenger service. But it was not enough to save Penn Central, so Congress passed the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (the “3R Act”) to salvage viable freight operations from Penn Central and other failing rail lines in the Northeast, mid-Atlantic and Midwest. It created the United States Railway Association (USRA) to develop a “Final System Plan” for the reorganization into a single entity — Conrail. Finally, The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (The “4R Act”) approved the Final System Plan, enabling Conrail to start operations on April 1, 1976. It provided what it thought was sufficient funding — an initial federal “investment” of $2.026 billion for Conrail to acquire the assets of bankrupt Northeast and Midwest railroads and get its operations started. This funding turned out to be insufficient. Conrail subsequently sought and received an additional $3 billion. However, by 1979, it had almost exhausted that amount. Under the leadership of a new CEO, L. Stanley Crane, Conrail claimed that it could succeed as a private entity if the rail marketplace was deregulated. Regulation intended to perpetuate monopolies Railroads had been operating under a regulated system since the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887. This legislation was an early initiative of the Progressive era and preceded other efforts at regulation, such as the Sherman Antitrust Act three years later. The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) became the model for rate-of-return regulation of public utilities. The microeconomic theory is that a monopoly business can be regulated by having the government control the prices charged by the market to a level equal to the efficient costs of production, plus a government-permitted rate of return on capital. This model became the norm for oversight of many asset-based, network-operating businesses such as communications, utilities, and other transportation modes. What is overlooked by many is that — by design — regulation was intended to perpetuate monopolies because it ensured that excess capacity would be available in the event of war or other national emergencies. The monopoly license was maintained through a series of operating authorities that determined which providers could serve which markets. Consumers paid more — but hopefully not too much more. This legislation was passed when railroads were the primary means of freight and passenger transportation. However, the subsequent development of the Interstate Highway System and air traffic changed that dominant position. Meanwhile, the onset of persistent stagflation during the 1970s encouraged deregulatory efforts in many regulated industries. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 was a predecessor. However, the Interstate Commerce Commission, under Chairman Dan O’Neal, had already taken initiatives, permitted by the 4R Act, to deregulate certain rail sectors, such as intermodal. Key components of Staggers Act The Staggers Act had three key components: Railroads were able to negotiate contracts with a customer at market-based rates; reduced regulatory oversight over mergers and abandonments was enacted; and a regulatory backstop was established to protect shippers lacking effective competition. These legislative efforts completely inverted the commercial process. Regulation was cost-based pricing. Shippers were price takers. Deregulation begat price-based costing. The market determined the competitive price, and the carrier needed to find a way to produce the service so as to be profitable. This was accomplished in numerous ways: Railroad mergers enabled increased economies of scale and reduced overhead; technology supported cost reductions (e.g., end of train devices replacing the caboose); significant amounts of the networks were spun off to short line operations; and a reduction in train crew size from five to two and extending crew districts reduced costs significantly. The final step of this reduction required Congressional help in 1991, with the imposition of Presidential Emergency Board 219. But downsizing could only do so much. Topline growth was necessary. Into this opportunity stepped intermodal. As international traffic grew with globalization, a large part of the volume growth came from ocean carriers. Traditional domestic customers increased their volume, and major new customers, such as J.B. Hunt, entered as well. It was a win-win situation for everyone. Railroads filled excess capacity, and intermodal customers enjoyed reliable and cost-effective service. Everything went well until the summer of 1993. The weather that summer caused terrible service problems. As an industry, we missed the wakeup call. We were too eager to attribute the problems to a fluke weather condition, not recognizing that capacity utilization was nearing maximum. Since then, the industry has been dealing with the challenge of increasing the top and bottom lines simultaneously. This has frequently proven elusive. The advent of activist investors has only raised the stakes. With the proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger, the industry finds itself facing a new future but the same historical set of challenges. In retrospect, it is clear to see how we got here, but it is less clear where we are going. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

A look back at the ‘Staggers Act’ and where the US rail industry is today

{name}: {valueY} 
 {M-o-M:} {change_last_month.formatNumber('#.#%')} 
 {Y-o-Y:} {change_last_year.formatNumber('#.#%')} 

Global container volumes (CTS)

CTS Global TEU volumes (Monthly) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ubiquity of WiseTech’s flagship platform in the forwarding market has placed a target on its back — one that grew larger with a significant change last week in how it prices its product.</div>

The ubiquity of WiseTech’s flagship platform in the forwarding market has placed a target on its back — one that grew larger with a significant change last week in how it prices its product.

<div class="phx-topic">The number of complaints from forwarders about <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/wisetech-pricing-change-tests-shippers-willingness-to-absorb-tech-costs-6127788">last week’s pricing model change</a> by software provider WiseTech Global is an indication that the company’s flagship product has reached a level of market penetration that many technology companies can only dream of. There’s a saying in technology circles that software companies want their products to be so successful that everyone grumbles about them. That scenario generally only occurs when a product is so ubiquitous that it’s hard to envision an industry using anything else. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6133280_0.1.jpg"></img></div>CargoWise occupies that place in the world of forwarding. Simply put, most forwarders of any size and scale are using CargoWise for something, whether it be back-office accounting, transportation management, trade compliance or some mix of all three. By some estimates, CargoWise has as much as a 70% share of the forwarding software market, dwarfing the market share that even the largest forwarder, DSV (a current CargoWise customer) has over the logistics industry. Which means that WiseTech Global, with a $16 billion market capitalization, has a more dominant position in its market than its largest customer — with a $60 billion market cap – has in its market. That explains, in part, why something as seemingly banal as a change in the way WiseTech prices its product has created such a furor. Over the past three decades, a small software provider to Australian forwarders has morphed into a global technology powerhouse, a brand everyone loves to hate, because so many people must use its products. WiseTech’s fortress is, in part, built around a string of acquisitions of country-specific customs software vendors it made over the past dozen years. Those acquisitions give WiseTech direct connections to customs authorities that its competitors mostly lack, allowing its customers to remain compliant in a range of export and import markets. The importance of this network of customs capabilities can’t be understated — without it, forwarders struggle to help their customers clear regulatory authorities in key markets. That, along with general ledger and accounting functions upon which many forwarders base their operations, creates a scenario that makes it difficult for forwarders to switch to other solutions. As one forwarder put it to the Journal of Commerce: “It would be like ripping out a person’s circulatory system while the person was still alive.” <h3>No meaningful competition </h3>There is more to WiseTech’s dominance than its own ascent. A number of forwarding software vendors have, over the years, had designs encroaching on WiseTech’s turf. The list is not long, but it includes more than a dozen names, from sizable incumbent rivals such as Descartes, Softlink and Magaya, to upstarts that emerged in the past decade, including GoFreight and NewAge, to even newer entrants such as FreightSuite and Clear.ai. In addition, there are a number of regional providers that tend to focus on forwarders in their geographic market, most notably Riege in Germany. All of those providers collectively have failed to alter WiseTech’s trajectory, even as concerns grew from customers over WiseTech’s annual price increases and its sluggishness in integrating the products from its acquisitions. A new dimension to those concerns arose <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/wisetech-makes-2-billion-gamble-on-overturning-complicated-software-history-6013221">this past May when WiseTech made its biggest ever acquisition</a>, a $2.1 billion deal for E2open, a logistics software vendor that catered primarily to shippers. That enabled WiseTech to offer products directly to the customers of its core CargoWise users. Coupled with the upheaval from the pricing change, and an expectation from most CargoWise customers that the new pricing model would raise technology costs above the normal annual price increases, fully leveraging E2open would seemingly force forwarders to reconsider their use of CargoWise, if that is truly an option. For many, it won’t be. And so, if the anger around the pricing change model eventually passes without a wholesale loss of its customer base, that will be a sign that WiseTech has indeed reached escape velocity, and that the forwarding world is more dependent on the software provider than it had believed. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The number of complaints from forwarders about last week’s pricing model change by software provider WiseTech Global is an indication that the company’s flagship product has reached a level of market penetration that many technology companies can only dream of. There’s a saying in technology circles that software companies want their products to be so successful that everyone grumbles about them. That scenario generally only occurs when a product is so ubiquitous that it’s hard to envision an industry using anything else. CargoWise occupies that place in the world of forwarding. Simply put, most forwarders of any size and scale are using CargoWise for something, whether it be back-office accounting, transportation management, trade compliance or some mix of all three. By some estimates, CargoWise has as much as a 70% share of the forwarding software market, dwarfing the market share that even the largest forwarder, DSV (a current CargoWise customer) has over the logistics industry. Which means that WiseTech Global, with a $16 billion market capitalization, has a more dominant position in its market than its largest customer — with a $60 billion market cap – has in its market. That explains, in part, why something as seemingly banal as a change in the way WiseTech prices its product has created such a furor. Over the past three decades, a small software provider to Australian forwarders has morphed into a global technology powerhouse, a brand everyone loves to hate, because so many people must use its products. WiseTech’s fortress is, in part, built around a string of acquisitions of country-specific customs software vendors it made over the past dozen years. Those acquisitions give WiseTech direct connections to customs authorities that its competitors mostly lack, allowing its customers to remain compliant in a range of export and import markets. The importance of this network of customs capabilities can’t be understated — without it, forwarders struggle to help their customers clear regulatory authorities in key markets. That, along with general ledger and accounting functions upon which many forwarders base their operations, creates a scenario that makes it difficult for forwarders to switch to other solutions. As one forwarder put it to the Journal of Commerce: “It would be like ripping out a person’s circulatory system while the person was still alive.” No meaningful competition There is more to WiseTech’s dominance than its own ascent. A number of forwarding software vendors have, over the years, had designs encroaching on WiseTech’s turf. The list is not long, but it includes more than a dozen names, from sizable incumbent rivals such as Descartes, Softlink and Magaya, to upstarts that emerged in the past decade, including GoFreight and NewAge, to even newer entrants such as FreightSuite and Clear.ai. In addition, there are a number of regional providers that tend to focus on forwarders in their geographic market, most notably Riege in Germany. All of those providers collectively have failed to alter WiseTech’s trajectory, even as concerns grew from customers over WiseTech’s annual price increases and its sluggishness in integrating the products from its acquisitions. A new dimension to those concerns arose this past May when WiseTech made its biggest ever acquisition , a $2.1 billion deal for E2open, a logistics software vendor that catered primarily to shippers. That enabled WiseTech to offer products directly to the customers of its core CargoWise users. Coupled with the upheaval from the pricing change, and an expectation from most CargoWise customers that the new pricing model would raise technology costs above the normal annual price increases, fully leveraging E2open would seemingly force forwarders to reconsider their use of CargoWise, if that is truly an option. For many, it won’t be. And so, if the anger around the pricing change model eventually passes without a wholesale loss of its customer base, that will be a sign that WiseTech has indeed reached escape velocity, and that the forwarding world is more dependent on the software provider than it had believed. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

CargoWise’s pricing model change could mark final milestone in market ascent

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">New analysis shows a systematic displacement of tonnage from primary to secondary trade lanes has occurred over the past two years, while a shortage of capacity is looming over the smaller shipping segment. </div>

New analysis shows a systematic displacement of tonnage from primary to secondary trade lanes has occurred over the past two years, while a shortage of capacity is looming over the smaller shipping segment.

<div class="phx-topic">The massive injection of larger vessels into the Asia-Europe and Asia-Mediterranean trades over the past two years has pushed smaller vessels into the trans-Atlantic and Latin America corridors, spreading structural overcapacity to secondary lanes. However, despite more than 1.7 million TEUs of new tonnage set to be delivered in 2026, mostly in the 15,000-to-24,000-TEU range, there is a growing mismatch in terms of the size of ships needed, with vessels in the sub-5,000-TEU segment — the backbone of intra-regional and feeder networks — aging rapidly, according to new analysis. A systematic displacement of tonnage from primary to secondary trade lanes over the past two years was driven by extreme outward pressure from the Red Sea diversions, drought in the Panama Canal and the reshuffling of alliances in the first half of 2025, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. “To maintain weekly service frequency while navigating the longer sailing distances on Asia-Europe, carriers were forced to inject significant additional tonnage into Asia-North Europe,” Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence, wrote in this week’s Sunday Spotlight newsletter. The injection of so much capacity triggered a massive downstream effect. As carriers introduced new 24,000-TEU vessels into the extended North Europe services, the existing 14,000-to-20,000-TEU vessels were cascaded directly into the Asia-Mediterranean trade lane. In the trans-Pacific, the capacity management on the Asia-North America West and East coast trades through 2024 was operational in nature as carriers shuffled tonnage between the two trade lanes to mitigate Panama Canal draft restrictions, US port labor disruptions and the after-effects of the pandemic-induced volatility. The net effect was high movement of ships but not much change in capacity. In February of this year, the launch of new alliance structures — Gemini Cooperation, Premier Alliance and Mediterranean Shipping Co. as a standalone venture — provided the catalyst for a massive network shakeup, Sea-Intelligence noted. Carriers broke up established service loops and repositioned vessels globally to fit the new service networks. Volatile demand on Asia-North America West Coast saw a net reduction of 427,432 TEUs in the first half of 2025 as carriers blanked sailings to try to support rates, Murphy noted in the Sunday Spotlight. At the same time, the rapid growth on Asia-Mediterranean subsided, with Murphy surmising that after 18 months of absorbing cascaded tonnage from Asia-North Europe, the trade lane had likely reached a saturation point. In the first half of this year, the net capacity growth into Asia-Mediterranean decelerated by 79% compared with 2024. <h3>Steady operational state </h3>By the second half of 2025, the new alliance networks had reached a relatively steady operational state with the Mediterranean-North America East Coast trade lane emerging as a key cascading corridor, absorbing 127,686 TEUs in the second half, with most of that capacity from the Asia-Mediterranean trade, the Sunday Spotlight noted. A total of 14 vessels were shifted in the second half, 11 of those of 14,000 to 15,000 TEUs. Asia-East Coast South America (ECSA) was the next biggest net gainer in the second half, absorbing 112,998 TEUs. Most of that was from the two Asia-North America trade lanes that cascaded a combined 283,946 TEUs. A total of 32 vessels were shifted, with 72% of them in the 8,000- to 14,000-TEU segment. But Murphy noted that the nature of the growth in capacity was fundamentally different from the previous year, with 97% of the vessels entering the Asia-East Coast South America trade taking up permanent employment there and not being returned to their previous routes. “This meant that Asia-ECSA became a seemingly preferred destination for mid-size tonnage of 8,000-14,000 TEU vessels that had been cycled out of the main east-west trade lanes,” he said. As the dust settles from the alliance reshuffling of capacity, new analysis from consultancy MDS Transmodal notes that should carriers return to large-scale Red Sea transits, it will expose the imbalance that has built up in the global fleet over the past few years. “While much of the industry has focused on the temporary capacity absorption created by rerouting around Africa, the underlying fundamentals point to something far more persistent: a container fleet that is oversupplied at the top end but increasingly shrinking at the bottom,” Antonella Teodoro, senior consultant at MDS Transmodal, noted in her analysis titled The Post-Red Sea Fleet Paradox: Oversupply at the Top, Shortages at the Bottom. “As diversions unwind and new ships continue to arrive, the industry faces two very different capacity problems — one defined by excess, the other by scarcity,” Teodoro said. <h3>Small ships crucial to regional segment </h3>In 2025, the capacity ordered in the 10,000-to-20,000-TEU bracket was 1.6 million TEUs and the ships greater than 20,000 TEUs comprised 1.3 million TEUs. By contrast, in the less-than-5,000-TEU segment, the 2025 order book was at 442,182 TEUs, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Teodoro said the sub-5,000-TEU segment was crucial for the intra-regional and feeder networks, but more than 60% of the vessels were at least 25 years old or older, making them prime scrapping candidates. Yet the order book in these size categories was almost non-existent. “By 2030, the global fleet below 2,500 TEUs could contract by 40% to 80%, with the 500-to-999-TEU category almost disappearing entirely,” she said. “This matters because many port systems depend on these vessels in a way that cannot be substituted ... by larger tonnage, regardless of how cheap or abundant it becomes.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="5ea90874-1017-4ee9-a80c-de2dfc51d88b"></dynamic-object></div>Alphaliner shipping analyst Mael Pape-Léostic said there are 593 vessels in the sub-5,000-TEU bracket that are 25 years old or older out of 4,473 ships currently trading — 13% of the fleet. In the sub-2,500-TEU segment, 17% of the trading fleet is 25 years old or older. “After a first wave of orders mainly focusing on large ships, we saw carriers this year in particular ordering smaller units with a high interest for specific classes like Bangkokmax [1,700-1,900 TEUs] and Chittagongmax [2,800 TEUs],” Pape-Léostic told the Journal of Commerce. “The ships of smaller segments of the market are aging, but it seems that carriers and non-operating owners are now in the process of rejuvenating this fleet after having focused on mainliners,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The massive injection of larger vessels into the Asia-Europe and Asia-Mediterranean trades over the past two years has pushed smaller vessels into the trans-Atlantic and Latin America corridors, spreading structural overcapacity to secondary lanes. However, despite more than 1.7 million TEUs of new tonnage set to be delivered in 2026, mostly in the 15,000-to-24,000-TEU range, there is a growing mismatch in terms of the size of ships needed, with vessels in the sub-5,000-TEU segment — the backbone of intra-regional and feeder networks — aging rapidly, according to new analysis. A systematic displacement of tonnage from primary to secondary trade lanes over the past two years was driven by extreme outward pressure from the Red Sea diversions, drought in the Panama Canal and the reshuffling of alliances in the first half of 2025, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. “To maintain weekly service frequency while navigating the longer sailing distances on Asia-Europe, carriers were forced to inject significant additional tonnage into Asia-North Europe,” Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence, wrote in this week’s Sunday Spotlight newsletter. The injection of so much capacity triggered a massive downstream effect. As carriers introduced new 24,000-TEU vessels into the extended North Europe services, the existing 14,000-to-20,000-TEU vessels were cascaded directly into the Asia-Mediterranean trade lane. In the trans-Pacific, the capacity management on the Asia-North America West and East coast trades through 2024 was operational in nature as carriers shuffled tonnage between the two trade lanes to mitigate Panama Canal draft restrictions, US port labor disruptions and the after-effects of the pandemic-induced volatility. The net effect was high movement of ships but not much change in capacity. In February of this year, the launch of new alliance structures — Gemini Cooperation, Premier Alliance and Mediterranean Shipping Co. as a standalone venture — provided the catalyst for a massive network shakeup, Sea-Intelligence noted. Carriers broke up established service loops and repositioned vessels globally to fit the new service networks. Volatile demand on Asia-North America West Coast saw a net reduction of 427,432 TEUs in the first half of 2025 as carriers blanked sailings to try to support rates, Murphy noted in the Sunday Spotlight. At the same time, the rapid growth on Asia-Mediterranean subsided, with Murphy surmising that after 18 months of absorbing cascaded tonnage from Asia-North Europe, the trade lane had likely reached a saturation point. In the first half of this year, the net capacity growth into Asia-Mediterranean decelerated by 79% compared with 2024. Steady operational state By the second half of 2025, the new alliance networks had reached a relatively steady operational state with the Mediterranean-North America East Coast trade lane emerging as a key cascading corridor, absorbing 127,686 TEUs in the second half, with most of that capacity from the Asia-Mediterranean trade, the Sunday Spotlight noted. A total of 14 vessels were shifted in the second half, 11 of those of 14,000 to 15,000 TEUs. Asia-East Coast South America (ECSA) was the next biggest net gainer in the second half, absorbing 112,998 TEUs. Most of that was from the two Asia-North America trade lanes that cascaded a combined 283,946 TEUs. A total of 32 vessels were shifted, with 72% of them in the 8,000- to 14,000-TEU segment. But Murphy noted that the nature of the growth in capacity was fundamentally different from the previous year, with 97% of the vessels entering the Asia-East Coast South America trade taking up permanent employment there and not being returned to their previous routes. “This meant that Asia-ECSA became a seemingly preferred destination for mid-size tonnage of 8,000-14,000 TEU vessels that had been cycled out of the main east-west trade lanes,” he said. As the dust settles from the alliance reshuffling of capacity, new analysis from consultancy MDS Transmodal notes that should carriers return to large-scale Red Sea transits, it will expose the imbalance that has built up in the global fleet over the past few years. “While much of the industry has focused on the temporary capacity absorption created by rerouting around Africa, the underlying fundamentals point to something far more persistent: a container fleet that is oversupplied at the top end but increasingly shrinking at the bottom,” Antonella Teodoro, senior consultant at MDS Transmodal, noted in her analysis titled The Post-Red Sea Fleet Paradox: Oversupply at the Top, Shortages at the Bottom. “As diversions unwind and new ships continue to arrive, the industry faces two very different capacity problems — one defined by excess, the other by scarcity,” Teodoro said. Small ships crucial to regional segment In 2025, the capacity ordered in the 10,000-to-20,000-TEU bracket was 1.6 million TEUs and the ships greater than 20,000 TEUs comprised 1.3 million TEUs. By contrast, in the less-than-5,000-TEU segment, the 2025 order book was at 442,182 TEUs, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Teodoro said the sub-5,000-TEU segment was crucial for the intra-regional and feeder networks, but more than 60% of the vessels were at least 25 years old or older, making them prime scrapping candidates. Yet the order book in these size categories was almost non-existent. “By 2030, the global fleet below 2,500 TEUs could contract by 40% to 80%, with the 500-to-999-TEU category almost disappearing entirely,” she said. “This matters because many port systems depend on these vessels in a way that cannot be substituted ... by larger tonnage, regardless of how cheap or abundant it becomes.” Alphaliner shipping analyst Mael Pape-Léostic said there are 593 vessels in the sub-5,000-TEU bracket that are 25 years old or older out of 4,473 ships currently trading — 13% of the fleet. In the sub-2,500-TEU segment, 17% of the trading fleet is 25 years old or older. “After a first wave of orders mainly focusing on large ships, we saw carriers this year in particular ordering smaller units with a high interest for specific classes like Bangkokmax [1,700-1,900 TEUs] and Chittagongmax [2,800 TEUs],” Pape-Léostic told the Journal of Commerce. “The ships of smaller segments of the market are aging, but it seems that carriers and non-operating owners are now in the process of rejuvenating this fleet after having focused on mainliners,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Cascading container tonnage spreads structural overcapacity to secondary lanes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The rise in bookings is driving an increase in the capacity offered by ocean carriers on Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean that this week reached record levels on both trades. </div>

The rise in bookings is driving an increase in the capacity offered by ocean carriers on Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean that this week reached record levels on both trades.

<div class="phx-topic">Robust demand in December is filling ships on the Asia to North Europe and Mediterranean container shipping trades, with the strong volume expected to continue through January as cargo owners lock in bookings ahead of February’s Lunar New Year. Data from container shipment tracker Vizion shows bookings for the three weeks ending Dec. 7 rose 10% compared with the prior three weeks, with 207,000 TEUs booked on Asia-Europe. Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said high demand in December has become a “new normal” on the westbound corridors. “In 2023 and 2024, and probably also 2025, December is the month of the year with the highest demand,” he said, adding that it was “real demand” with no sign of shippers frontloading orders. The rise in bookings is driving an increase in the capacity offered by ocean carriers on Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean that this week reached record levels on both trades. Data from Xeneta shows carriers are deploying 1.12 million TEUs of capacity in December on Asia-North Europe while blanking 84,000 TEUs, down from 126,000 TEUs blanked in November. Planned capacity for the trade in January is at a record 1.17 million TEUs, while blanks announced so far are at 54,000 TEUs. Capacity deployed on Asia-Mediterranean in December is at 788,842 TEUs with 69,218 TEUs blanked, compared with November, when 713,489 TEUs were deployed and 98,296 TEUs blanked, Xeneta data shows. A record 849,371 TEUs are planned for January deployment, with blank sailings currently at 39,706 TEUs. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="f4ff8e0a-22c0-44e8-99ff-43c43501ec74"></dynamic-object></div>A spokesperson for Hapag-Lloyd said regular capacity deployed on the main trade lanes into Europe was increasing to meet the rising demand, while rates “are expected to peak in early January with a gradual slowdown towards February.” The rising volume through the fourth quarter is being accompanied by a steep increase in spot rates. Asia-North Europe rates reached $2,350 per FEU as of Dec. 9, up 80% since the beginning of October, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Asia-Mediterranean rates of $3,250/FEU this week are just over double where they were on Oct. 1. Jacob Moe, senior vice president of global FCL (full container load) at DHL Global Forwarding, said Asia-Europe demand leading into the Lunar New Year was “very strong” in December with a “strong booking intake” already being made for January. “We are for now not seeing extra loaders being put in but are watching the blank sailing program as this seems to be enough to manage the capacity from the carrier side,” Moe told the Journal of Commerce. <h3>Year of high demand growth </h3>Demand growth in Asia-Europe this year is up between 10% and 14%, depending on the market vertical, according to Michael Aldwell, executive vice president of sea logistics at Kuehne + Nagel. “We haven’t seen growth like that on the Far East westbound trade since before the global financial crisis,” Aldwell told the Journal of Commerce in a recent interview. Total Asian exports to North Europe and the Mediterranean of 21.95 million TEUs from January through October are up 8.6% year over year, with almost 2 million more boxes this year than last, according to Container Trades Statistics (CTS). <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1757bc92-59e3-4e30-b987-63a9d840cd61"></dynamic-object></div>One explanation for the solid growth in European import volumes into December is that shippers are building inventory as a buffer to counter the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stretched-logistics-capacity-in-europe-threatened-by-red-sea-return-6129492">disruption that is likely to occur should widespread Red Sea transits resume</a>, with the later-than-usual Lunar New Year that starts on Feb. 17 giving shippers more time to stock up. But Andy Gillespie, senior logistics advisor at supply chain managers WOWL, said shippers trying to plan orders three or four months out while factoring in a potential return to the Red Sea was virtually impossible. “[Reducing] inventories and replenishment planning with some orders suddenly transiting two weeks faster while others are taking the Cape of Good Hope routing is unplannable for those supply chain managers that are placing orders 90 to 120 days in advance of when they think they need the products at destination [distribution centers] or with customers,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Gillespie said logistics service providers will have to pick up the slack in Europe, adding that yards or warehouses with capacity at 80% or higher “will be slammed” as ships diverting around southern Africa and those transiting the Red Sea converge. “For shippers and the routing of cargo, we won’t know which services are going which way exactly or where the feeders will hook up on which service, so the logistics people will deal with the chaos,” he said. “In the end, though, back to Suez safely is a great thing.” Despite some carriers moving capacity through the Suez, there remains no clarity on when large-scale mainline Asia-Europe services will resume voyages through the critical waterway. Carriers are assessing the risk profile of returning to the Red Sea, which they say revolves around the safety of the crew, ship and cargo. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Robust demand in December is filling ships on the Asia to North Europe and Mediterranean container shipping trades, with the strong volume expected to continue through January as cargo owners lock in bookings ahead of February’s Lunar New Year. Data from container shipment tracker Vizion shows bookings for the three weeks ending Dec. 7 rose 10% compared with the prior three weeks, with 207,000 TEUs booked on Asia-Europe. Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said high demand in December has become a “new normal” on the westbound corridors. “In 2023 and 2024, and probably also 2025, December is the month of the year with the highest demand,” he said, adding that it was “real demand” with no sign of shippers frontloading orders. The rise in bookings is driving an increase in the capacity offered by ocean carriers on Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean that this week reached record levels on both trades. Data from Xeneta shows carriers are deploying 1.12 million TEUs of capacity in December on Asia-North Europe while blanking 84,000 TEUs, down from 126,000 TEUs blanked in November. Planned capacity for the trade in January is at a record 1.17 million TEUs, while blanks announced so far are at 54,000 TEUs. Capacity deployed on Asia-Mediterranean in December is at 788,842 TEUs with 69,218 TEUs blanked, compared with November, when 713,489 TEUs were deployed and 98,296 TEUs blanked, Xeneta data shows. A record 849,371 TEUs are planned for January deployment, with blank sailings currently at 39,706 TEUs. A spokesperson for Hapag-Lloyd said regular capacity deployed on the main trade lanes into Europe was increasing to meet the rising demand, while rates “are expected to peak in early January with a gradual slowdown towards February.” The rising volume through the fourth quarter is being accompanied by a steep increase in spot rates. Asia-North Europe rates reached $2,350 per FEU as of Dec. 9, up 80% since the beginning of October, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Asia-Mediterranean rates of $3,250/FEU this week are just over double where they were on Oct. 1. Jacob Moe, senior vice president of global FCL (full container load) at DHL Global Forwarding, said Asia-Europe demand leading into the Lunar New Year was “very strong” in December with a “strong booking intake” already being made for January. “We are for now not seeing extra loaders being put in but are watching the blank sailing program as this seems to be enough to manage the capacity from the carrier side,” Moe told the Journal of Commerce. Year of high demand growth Demand growth in Asia-Europe this year is up between 10% and 14%, depending on the market vertical, according to Michael Aldwell, executive vice president of sea logistics at Kuehne + Nagel. “We haven’t seen growth like that on the Far East westbound trade since before the global financial crisis,” Aldwell told the Journal of Commerce in a recent interview. Total Asian exports to North Europe and the Mediterranean of 21.95 million TEUs from January through October are up 8.6% year over year, with almost 2 million more boxes this year than last, according to Container Trades Statistics (CTS). One explanation for the solid growth in European import volumes into December is that shippers are building inventory as a buffer to counter the disruption that is likely to occur should widespread Red Sea transits resume , with the later-than-usual Lunar New Year that starts on Feb. 17 giving shippers more time to stock up. But Andy Gillespie, senior logistics advisor at supply chain managers WOWL, said shippers trying to plan orders three or four months out while factoring in a potential return to the Red Sea was virtually impossible. “[Reducing] inventories and replenishment planning with some orders suddenly transiting two weeks faster while others are taking the Cape of Good Hope routing is unplannable for those supply chain managers that are placing orders 90 to 120 days in advance of when they think they need the products at destination [distribution centers] or with customers,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Gillespie said logistics service providers will have to pick up the slack in Europe, adding that yards or warehouses with capacity at 80% or higher “will be slammed” as ships diverting around southern Africa and those transiting the Red Sea converge. “For shippers and the routing of cargo, we won’t know which services are going which way exactly or where the feeders will hook up on which service, so the logistics people will deal with the chaos,” he said. “In the end, though, back to Suez safely is a great thing.” Despite some carriers moving capacity through the Suez, there remains no clarity on when large-scale mainline Asia-Europe services will resume voyages through the critical waterway. Carriers are assessing the risk profile of returning to the Red Sea, which they say revolves around the safety of the crew, ship and cargo. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Cargo bookings for Asia-Europe ocean trade rise sharply in December

Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code SSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SEASON"S SAVINGS

Subscribe today using code SSW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SEASON'S SAVINGS

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code SSW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Use code SSW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Subscribe today using code SSW30 at checkout and save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Get into a Gold subscription today and save $500 by using code SSW995 at checkout!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SEASON'S SAVINGS: Use code SSW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Israel-based carrier is urging shareholders to reelect its current slate of directors later this month after alternate nominees were put forth by dissident shareholders. </div>

The Israel-based carrier is urging shareholders to reelect its current slate of directors later this month after alternate nominees were put forth by dissident shareholders.

<div class="phx-topic">A group of shareholders has launched a proxy fight to get their candidates elected to the board of Zim Integrated Shipping Services after the ocean carrier rejected <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-says-reviewing-buyout-offers-including-one-from-ceo-6123362">an initial buyout offer from its chief executive</a> as too low and continues to review other potential bids. The Israel-based ocean carrier said in a statement Tuesday that a proxy advisor recommended shareholders reelect eight current board members at the company’s Dec. 26 annual meeting. The advisor also recommended that Zim shareholders vote against a slate of three directors nominated by an investor group that “made no attempt to work constructively with the board nor provided any suggestions for improving the company’s business or any other insight into how to create long-term value for shareholders,” Zim said. The investor group — Mor Gemel &amp; Pension Ltd., Reading Capital Ltd., and Sparta 24 — said in a letter nominating its candidates that it holds 5% of the company’s stock, Zim said. The investor group did not release the required stock exchange disclosures or a public statement about its proxy fight. There was no contact information available for the investors. The investor group put up their nominees after a report that Zim Chief Executive Eli Glickman made a buyout offer that was less than the company’s cash balance, Zim said in its statement. While Zim evaluated Glickman’s proposal, it “unanimously determined that it materially undervalued the company,” the carrier said. “The rumor that the board was willing to accept such an undervalued bid was clearly false,” Zim said. The investor group wants the company to issue a special dividend, Zim said, which would undermine Zim’s “liquidity and create substantial risk to shareholder value given our charter-intensive model, which requires adequate cash to navigate industry cycles.” Zim’s board said that it’s continuing a review of strategic alternatives that could include a merger or other another transaction. As part of that review, Zim has set up a transaction committee and appointed two additional outside directors to review any offers. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A group of shareholders has launched a proxy fight to get their candidates elected to the board of Zim Integrated Shipping Services after the ocean carrier rejected an initial buyout offer from its chief executive as too low and continues to review other potential bids. The Israel-based ocean carrier said in a statement Tuesday that a proxy advisor recommended shareholders reelect eight current board members at the company’s Dec. 26 annual meeting. The advisor also recommended that Zim shareholders vote against a slate of three directors nominated by an investor group that “made no attempt to work constructively with the board nor provided any suggestions for improving the company’s business or any other insight into how to create long-term value for shareholders,” Zim said. The investor group — Mor Gemel & Pension Ltd., Reading Capital Ltd., and Sparta 24 — said in a letter nominating its candidates that it holds 5% of the company’s stock, Zim said. The investor group did not release the required stock exchange disclosures or a public statement about its proxy fight. There was no contact information available for the investors. The investor group put up their nominees after a report that Zim Chief Executive Eli Glickman made a buyout offer that was less than the company’s cash balance, Zim said in its statement. While Zim evaluated Glickman’s proposal, it “unanimously determined that it materially undervalued the company,” the carrier said. “The rumor that the board was willing to accept such an undervalued bid was clearly false,” Zim said. The investor group wants the company to issue a special dividend, Zim said, which would undermine Zim’s “liquidity and create substantial risk to shareholder value given our charter-intensive model, which requires adequate cash to navigate industry cycles.” Zim’s board said that it’s continuing a review of strategic alternatives that could include a merger or other another transaction. As part of that review, Zim has set up a transaction committee and appointed two additional outside directors to review any offers. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Maersk picks new CFO, reshuffles some regional chiefs

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

CargoWise’s pricing model change could mark final milestone in market ascent

Cascading container tonnage spreads structural overcapacity to secondary lanes

Cargo bookings for Asia-Europe ocean trade rise sharply in December

Recent Commentary

Premium pricing linked to vessel schedule reliability faces rough waters

A look back at the ‘Staggers Act’ and where the US rail industry is today

Top 5 Most Read Stories