<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">From his hometown hub of Memphis, Fred Smith built FedEx from a $4 million inheritance to an $88 billion behemoth. </div>

From his hometown hub of Memphis, Fred Smith built FedEx from a $4 million inheritance to an $88 billion behemoth.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx who revolutionized parcel shipment through his visionary “hub-and-spoke” model, which helped to galvanize global trade, died Saturday at 80. From his hometown hub of Memphis, Fred Smith built FedEx from a $4 million inheritance to an $88 billion behemoth, with spokes reaching more than 210 countries and territories. His idea, famously rejected by his then college professor, collected packages at central points, from which they would be flown to various locations overnight. The US Marine veteran founded Federal Express in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1971, beginning operations in Memphis two years later with fewer than 400 employees and serving 25 cities. The company, which now has more than 500,00 employees, includes truck and delivery van service FedEx Ground, less-than-truckload carrier FedEx Freight, and forwarder FedEx Trade Networks. Smith was a forceful advocate for free trade, championing FedEx’s role in promoting economic growth and prosperity. “Trade has made America great, and expanding trade has been a bipartisan pursuit for over 80 years,” Smith told the National Council on Competitiveness a month before President Donald Trump’s first inauguration in January 2017. “The failure to continue to do so would be a severe mistake with enormous consequences for America and the world.” Smith vehemently lobbied for air cargo deregulation signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. “Protectionism squelches competition and lowers economic growth,” Smith said at the TPM Conference in 2014, where he was the keynote speaker. “Over the last few years, almost every trading nation has introduced policies that permit greater government intervention in the trade process.” Smith had more influence on federal regulation than any other transportation executive, and his impact rippled through all modes of shipping, said Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group. “He saw the importance of information about the documents and parcels being shipped long before businesses and people even had computers,” Jindel said. Calling him “more than just the pioneer and the founder,” FedEx CEO Raj Subramaniam said in a statement that Smith was the heart and soul of FedEx – its (people-first-philosophy) culture, values, integrity, and spirit.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com.">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Fred Smith, the founder of FedEx who revolutionized parcel shipment through his visionary “hub-and-spoke” model, which helped to galvanize global trade, died Saturday at 80. From his hometown hub of Memphis, Fred Smith built FedEx from a $4 million inheritance to an $88 billion behemoth, with spokes reaching more than 210 countries and territories. His idea, famously rejected by his then college professor, collected packages at central points, from which they would be flown to various locations overnight. The US Marine veteran founded Federal Express in Little Rock, Arkansas in 1971, beginning operations in Memphis two years later with fewer than 400 employees and serving 25 cities. The company, which now has more than 500,00 employees, includes truck and delivery van service FedEx Ground, less-than-truckload carrier FedEx Freight, and forwarder FedEx Trade Networks. Smith was a forceful advocate for free trade, championing FedEx’s role in promoting economic growth and prosperity. “Trade has made America great, and expanding trade has been a bipartisan pursuit for over 80 years,” Smith told the National Council on Competitiveness a month before President Donald Trump’s first inauguration in January 2017. “The failure to continue to do so would be a severe mistake with enormous consequences for America and the world.” Smith vehemently lobbied for air cargo deregulation signed into law by President Jimmy Carter in 1977. “Protectionism squelches competition and lowers economic growth,” Smith said at the TPM Conference in 2014, where he was the keynote speaker. “Over the last few years, almost every trading nation has introduced policies that permit greater government intervention in the trade process.” Smith had more influence on federal regulation than any other transportation executive, and his impact rippled through all modes of shipping, said Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group. “He saw the importance of information about the documents and parcels being shipped long before businesses and people even had computers,” Jindel said. Calling him “more than just the pioneer and the founder,” FedEx CEO Raj Subramaniam said in a statement that Smith was the heart and soul of FedEx – its (people-first-philosophy) culture, values, integrity, and spirit.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Fred Smith, FedEx founder and visionary, dead at 80

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">With little relief forthcoming, cargo owners need to build delays into their shipping plans as port and ship capacity remain tight, speakers at the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s annual meeting said.</div>

With little relief forthcoming, cargo owners need to build delays into their shipping plans as port and ship capacity remain tight, speakers at the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s annual meeting said.

<div class="phx-topic">TACOMA – Ongoing congestion at Asian and European transshipment ports and stricter carbon emission rules are hurting vessel schedule reliability, industry experts said at an agriculture shipping conference this week. With little relief on either issue forthcoming, cargo owners need to build delays into their shipping plans as port and ship capacity remain tight. Speaking at the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s (AgTC) annual meeting here, Kuehne + Nagel Vice President Bill Rooney said schedule reliability among ocean carriers is “still a dumpster fire.” He cited data that showed less than 60% of vessel calls in April globally were within a day of their scheduled berthing window. The post-COVID-19 high for schedule reliability was around 65%, Rooney said, adding that he doubts the industry can hit that target, much less pre-pandemic levels of service reliability. Agriculture shippers are among the most sensitive to poor schedule reliability due to the high handling costs and perishability of their products. “The traditional number was more like 75% or 80%,” Rooney said. “I’m not sure we’ll get back there.” Since its start this year, the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has said it’s been reaching its 90% schedule reliability goal regularly. However, Rooney said that likely reflects major linehaul services from the two carriers and not necessarily feeder or standalone services. Individually, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have global schedule reliability hovering under 70%, he estimated. “They may achieve 90% on your trade lane, but my advice is to check whether your port is now a feeder port versus a linehaul port,” said Rooney. Slower ships factor into the lower reliability, he said. In 2023, the global fleet averaged speeds at just under 14 knots, or about 16 miles per hour. That’s the slowest speed on record and about half the average speed that ships traveled 50 years earlier, he said. ”If you were 12 hours behind schedule, you could step on the gas and make your slot at your terminal,” Rooney said. “That’s not happening ever again.” He added shippers will have to plan around the fact that schedule reliability will likely remain subpar indefinitely. “You want to build a resilient supply chain? Resiliency is recognizing that the ships are seldom on time,” Rooney said. <h3>IMO rules, port congestion </h3>In 2023, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) rating went into effect for ships, requiring them to report and collect fuel consumption data. Fabio Santucci, US president for Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC), said lower speeds reduce fuel consumption to meet the increasingly strict CII ratings. ”Vessels cannot legally afford to go any faster,” Santucci said. “That’s where we lost, as an industry, the ability to catch up.” Along with slower speeds, ports globally are operating at nearly full capacity, Santucci said. Overall, there were about 900 million TEUs of containers shipped globally in 2024, with nameplate port capacity at about 1 billion TEUs. Santucci said congestion both inside and outside a port takes up the remaining capacity, leaving little space to manage cargo. While North American ports are mostly fluid, other ports across the globe right now are experiencing congestion levels as high as during the pandemic, Santucci said, with the problem most acute at major transshipment ports. ”If your cargo is transshipping, it’s witnessing congestion levels that are as high as those seen during COVID,” he said. “While we don’t see this effect in the United States, we have issues pretty much everywhere else in the world.” Among major European transshipment ports, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/no-end-to-the-congestion-choking-gateway-ports-in-north-europe-5995853">Hamburg</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bottlenecks-flare-in-barcelona-as-port-battles-rise-in-transshipment-volumes-5244343">Tanger Med</a> are “heavily disrupted,” according to a Kuehne + Nagel port status report. In the Western Hemisphere, Santucci said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cargo-bottlenecks-persist-at-mexicos-manzanillo-port-one-month-after-strike-6027313">Manzanillo</a> and the transshipment ports of Panama are also congested. Many ports throughout China are also congested as are the Southeast Asia ports, including Malaysia’s Port Klang and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/asia-port-disruption-wave-reaches-singapore-6014754">Singapore</a>, which Santucci said has been working at close to full capacity for months. “Singapore has been steadily working at 90% capacity for months and months and months,” Santucci said. “I can tell you that working at 90% capacity for months generates a lot of inefficiencies.” MSC’s large fleet allows it to offer more direct port calls, but Santucci said transshipping will remain a necessity for some services, particularly as shippers diversify their product sourcing to other countries. With only about 1% of the global container fleet idled, Santucci said carriers have little capacity to offer more direct services without the use of transshipping. ”Transshipment is always going to remain the Achilles heel of any network,” he said. “The more you transship, the more issues and more costs you’re going to have.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a></div>

TACOMA – Ongoing congestion at Asian and European transshipment ports and stricter carbon emission rules are hurting vessel schedule reliability, industry experts said at an agriculture shipping conference this week. With little relief on either issue forthcoming, cargo owners need to build delays into their shipping plans as port and ship capacity remain tight. Speaking at the Agriculture Transportation Coalition’s (AgTC) annual meeting here, Kuehne + Nagel Vice President Bill Rooney said schedule reliability among ocean carriers is “still a dumpster fire.” He cited data that showed less than 60% of vessel calls in April globally were within a day of their scheduled berthing window. The post-COVID-19 high for schedule reliability was around 65%, Rooney said, adding that he doubts the industry can hit that target, much less pre-pandemic levels of service reliability. Agriculture shippers are among the most sensitive to poor schedule reliability due to the high handling costs and perishability of their products. “The traditional number was more like 75% or 80%,” Rooney said. “I’m not sure we’ll get back there.” Since its start this year, the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has said it’s been reaching its 90% schedule reliability goal regularly. However, Rooney said that likely reflects major linehaul services from the two carriers and not necessarily feeder or standalone services. Individually, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have global schedule reliability hovering under 70%, he estimated. “They may achieve 90% on your trade lane, but my advice is to check whether your port is now a feeder port versus a linehaul port,” said Rooney. Slower ships factor into the lower reliability, he said. In 2023, the global fleet averaged speeds at just under 14 knots, or about 16 miles per hour. That’s the slowest speed on record and about half the average speed that ships traveled 50 years earlier, he said. ”If you were 12 hours behind schedule, you could step on the gas and make your slot at your terminal,” Rooney said. “That’s not happening ever again.” He added shippers will have to plan around the fact that schedule reliability will likely remain subpar indefinitely. “You want to build a resilient supply chain? Resiliency is recognizing that the ships are seldom on time,” Rooney said. IMO rules, port congestion In 2023, the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) rating went into effect for ships, requiring them to report and collect fuel consumption data. Fabio Santucci, US president for Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC), said lower speeds reduce fuel consumption to meet the increasingly strict CII ratings. ”Vessels cannot legally afford to go any faster,” Santucci said. “That’s where we lost, as an industry, the ability to catch up.” Along with slower speeds, ports globally are operating at nearly full capacity, Santucci said. Overall, there were about 900 million TEUs of containers shipped globally in 2024, with nameplate port capacity at about 1 billion TEUs. Santucci said congestion both inside and outside a port takes up the remaining capacity, leaving little space to manage cargo. While North American ports are mostly fluid, other ports across the globe right now are experiencing congestion levels as high as during the pandemic, Santucci said, with the problem most acute at major transshipment ports. ”If your cargo is transshipping, it’s witnessing congestion levels that are as high as those seen during COVID,” he said. “While we don’t see this effect in the United States, we have issues pretty much everywhere else in the world.” Among major European transshipment ports, Hamburg and Tanger Med are “heavily disrupted,” according to a Kuehne + Nagel port status report. In the Western Hemisphere, Santucci said Manzanillo and the transshipment ports of Panama are also congested. Many ports throughout China are also congested as are the Southeast Asia ports, including Malaysia’s Port Klang and Singapore , which Santucci said has been working at close to full capacity for months. “Singapore has been steadily working at 90% capacity for months and months and months,” Santucci said. “I can tell you that working at 90% capacity for months generates a lot of inefficiencies.” MSC’s large fleet allows it to offer more direct port calls, but Santucci said transshipping will remain a necessity for some services, particularly as shippers diversify their product sourcing to other countries. With only about 1% of the global container fleet idled, Santucci said carriers have little capacity to offer more direct services without the use of transshipping. ”Transshipment is always going to remain the Achilles heel of any network,” he said. “The more you transship, the more issues and more costs you’re going to have.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

Container Shipping News

Port News

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

North American ports

International ports

Maritime

Poor ocean reliability presents major challenge for US ag exporters

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But sources do not think carriers will have an opportunity to net full recovery of the proposed amounts in the current market environment unless strategic capacity cuts occur. </div>

But sources do not think carriers will have an opportunity to net full recovery of the proposed amounts in the current market environment unless strategic capacity cuts occur.

<div class="phx-topic">Container carriers on the India-US East Coast trade lane appear optimistic about the market outlook ahead of the onset of traditional peak season bookings despite tariff-linked uncertainty. Major lines have already announced hefty rate hikes for July, with Maersk leading the pack. The Danish carrier plans to implement a peak season surcharge (PSS) of $4,000 per container for Indian loads to the US and Canada beginning July 16. July rate hike announcements from other major carriers are generally in the range of $1,000 to $2,000 per box, though some liners have lined up multiple rounds for the month. ”All our recent vessels have sailed full,” a sales executive at a European carrier who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “We are also tightly booked for the next two sailings.” That “sold-out” scenario is arguably in large part due to a big cut in capacity out of West India – as many as five void calls in June that followed schedule disruptions linked to regional trade and military tensions during May. As a result, Indian shippers have faced an increasing number of container rollovers in recent weeks. Traditionally, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have significant service contract volumes, which freight forwarder sources believe could help those carriers attempt larger rate increases for limited spot space during the peak season. Still, sources do not think carriers will have an opportunity to net full recovery of the proposed amounts in the current market environment unless strategic capacity cuts occur. While July vessel updates were not immediately available, CMA CGM is set to add more ships to its Indamex (India-USEC) service soon to improve schedule reliability that has taken a hit due to its inability to provide a weekly rotation after it began standalone operations amid the pressure of longer transits around southern Africa, sources say. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="56199e2b-5df4-468f-a149-b18ae7c32e51"></dynamic-object></div>But a lack of pricing discipline from Asian operators – notably OOCL, Cosco Shipping and HMM working on slot charter capacity, as well as Ocean Network Express (ONE) -- remains a concern for the lead carriers. “The best chance of rate recovery is often torpedoed by undercutting,” said a sales executive at a second European carrier. “With some voids expected, we should be able to rally an appreciable spot rate recovery.” Spot rates for India to the US East Coast were pegged at $2,650 per FEU as of June 19 by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. That’s down from $3,030 per FEU two weeks ago. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com.</a></div>

Container carriers on the India-US East Coast trade lane appear optimistic about the market outlook ahead of the onset of traditional peak season bookings despite tariff-linked uncertainty. Major lines have already announced hefty rate hikes for July, with Maersk leading the pack. The Danish carrier plans to implement a peak season surcharge (PSS) of $4,000 per container for Indian loads to the US and Canada beginning July 16. July rate hike announcements from other major carriers are generally in the range of $1,000 to $2,000 per box, though some liners have lined up multiple rounds for the month. ”All our recent vessels have sailed full,” a sales executive at a European carrier who didn’t want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “We are also tightly booked for the next two sailings.” That “sold-out” scenario is arguably in large part due to a big cut in capacity out of West India – as many as five void calls in June that followed schedule disruptions linked to regional trade and military tensions during May. As a result, Indian shippers have faced an increasing number of container rollovers in recent weeks. Traditionally, Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd have significant service contract volumes, which freight forwarder sources believe could help those carriers attempt larger rate increases for limited spot space during the peak season. Still, sources do not think carriers will have an opportunity to net full recovery of the proposed amounts in the current market environment unless strategic capacity cuts occur. While July vessel updates were not immediately available, CMA CGM is set to add more ships to its Indamex (India-USEC) service soon to improve schedule reliability that has taken a hit due to its inability to provide a weekly rotation after it began standalone operations amid the pressure of longer transits around southern Africa, sources say. But a lack of pricing discipline from Asian operators – notably OOCL, Cosco Shipping and HMM working on slot charter capacity, as well as Ocean Network Express (ONE) -- remains a concern for the lead carriers. “The best chance of rate recovery is often torpedoed by undercutting,” said a sales executive at a second European carrier. “With some voids expected, we should be able to rally an appreciable spot rate recovery.” Spot rates for India to the US East Coast were pegged at $2,650 per FEU as of June 19 by Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. That’s down from $3,030 per FEU two weeks ago. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com.

India-US liners attempt hefty peak season rate hikes despite trade volatility

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Consultancy MDS Transmodal said the two companies will have just under half of the almost 176,700 TEU in feeder ship capacity deployed in Europe and the Mediterranean.</div>

Consultancy MDS Transmodal said the two companies will have just under half of the almost 176,700 TEU in feeder ship capacity deployed in Europe and the Mediterranean.

<div class="phx-topic">Cosco Shipping Lines has strengthened its short-sea capabilities in growing regional markets after signing two deals with Singapore-based X-Press Feeders, the world’s biggest feeder operator. The deals signed this week will significantly boost Cosco’s feeder shipping capabilities in Europe and the Mediterranean, accounting for 47% of deployed capacity. The tie-up will also give Cosco and X-Press the leading position in Latin America and the Middle East. The first deal covers a partnership agreement in which the carriers will cooperate on the development of feeder services in North Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. The second is a leasing agreement in which X-Press Feeders will provide Cosco Shipping Lines with rights of first refusal to charter newbuild vessels, which could be deployed to support joint services, X-Press said in a statement. The deals are aimed at providing greater flexibility and schedule integrity to overcome port congestion, which has been <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/months-of-congestion-ahead-for-north-europe-ports-antwerp-bruges-6028184">a particular problem in North European ports this year</a>. Consultancy MDS Transmodal said the two companies will have around 82,900 TEU of the almost 176,700 TEU feeder ship capacity deployed in Europe and the Mediterranean. Cosco’s Diamond Line short-sea subsidiary is currently the largest feeder operator in the two markets with 48,000 TEU, while X-Press Feeders is fourth with almost 35,000 TEU, according to data prepared by MDS Transmodal. X-Press Feeders is the largest feeder operator in Latin America and the Gulf/Indian subcontinent, accounting for capacities of 21,000 TEUs and 44,000 TEUs, respectively, according to MDS Transmodal. “X-Press Feeders has had long-standing cooperation with Cosco on various trades which has now evolved and expanded into a wider strategic partnership,” a senior shipping executive with knowledge of the tie-up told the Journal of Commerce. X-Press Feeders has an extensive newbuilding program with 16 ships totaling 101,100 TEU on order, including six 11,000-TEU vessels with methanol powering capabilities, that will increase the feeder operator’s existing deployed capacity by 54%, according to maritime analyst Alphaliner. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Cosco Shipping Lines has strengthened its short-sea capabilities in growing regional markets after signing two deals with Singapore-based X-Press Feeders, the world’s biggest feeder operator. The deals signed this week will significantly boost Cosco’s feeder shipping capabilities in Europe and the Mediterranean, accounting for 47% of deployed capacity. The tie-up will also give Cosco and X-Press the leading position in Latin America and the Middle East. The first deal covers a partnership agreement in which the carriers will cooperate on the development of feeder services in North Europe, the Mediterranean, the Middle East, Latin America and Asia. The second is a leasing agreement in which X-Press Feeders will provide Cosco Shipping Lines with rights of first refusal to charter newbuild vessels, which could be deployed to support joint services, X-Press said in a statement. The deals are aimed at providing greater flexibility and schedule integrity to overcome port congestion, which has been a particular problem in North European ports this year . Consultancy MDS Transmodal said the two companies will have around 82,900 TEU of the almost 176,700 TEU feeder ship capacity deployed in Europe and the Mediterranean. Cosco’s Diamond Line short-sea subsidiary is currently the largest feeder operator in the two markets with 48,000 TEU, while X-Press Feeders is fourth with almost 35,000 TEU, according to data prepared by MDS Transmodal. X-Press Feeders is the largest feeder operator in Latin America and the Gulf/Indian subcontinent, accounting for capacities of 21,000 TEUs and 44,000 TEUs, respectively, according to MDS Transmodal. “X-Press Feeders has had long-standing cooperation with Cosco on various trades which has now evolved and expanded into a wider strategic partnership,” a senior shipping executive with knowledge of the tie-up told the Journal of Commerce. X-Press Feeders has an extensive newbuilding program with 16 ships totaling 101,100 TEU on order, including six 11,000-TEU vessels with methanol powering capabilities, that will increase the feeder operator’s existing deployed capacity by 54%, according to maritime analyst Alphaliner. Contact Keith Wallis at  keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Cosco boosts feeder reach under pair of deals with X-Press

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Strong demand for much of the year has kept North European ports under pressure, slowing attempts to ease the bottlenecks.</div>

Strong demand for much of the year has kept North European ports under pressure, slowing attempts to ease the bottlenecks.

<div class="phx-topic">BRUSSELS – North European ports will continue to face disruption and congestion “for many more months” with little improvement in the series of factors contributing to the ongoing bottlenecks, according to an executive with the port of Antwerp-Bruges. Luc Arnouts, vice president of international relations and networks at Europe’s busiest port, said container yards were full at the main hubs, ships were arriving outside their berthing windows, intermittent strikes at some ports were having a knock-on effect, carrier alliances reshuffling capacity, low water on the Rhine and delays in hinterland moves were all holding up traffic. “Terminal occupancy is high in all the major ports so when ships do not arrive within their berthing window and arrive a day later, that disrupts the whole operation,” he told the CHAINge Europe supply chain conference here this week. Strong demand for much of the year has kept North European ports under pressure, slowing attempts to mitigate the bottlenecks. The latest Asia-to-Europe volume data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) is for April, when 1.64 million TEUs were transported westward, an increase of 8.6% year over year and a 6% gain from March. In the first four months of 2025, total Asia-Europe volume was up 9% year over year at 6.13 million TEUs, with the Asia-North Europe segment rising 6.6%, to 3.72 million TEUs, and Asia-Mediterranean surging 12.14%, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to CTS. Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer port visibility tool noted that port congestion in North European ports like Antwerp, Hamburg and Bremerhaven was extending transit times with delays in berthing, operational disruptions and high yard utilisation. The platform reported that container yards in Antwerp-Bruges were at 100% and carriers were reporting waiting times of up to three days, with truck slots limited and fully booked early each day. Container yards at Bremerhaven, one of the hubs for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd's Gemini Cooperation, is currently at 85%, while some terminals in Rotterdam are reportedly at 80% utilization. Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics, said ports in southern European were also seeing congestion due to longer transits around the Cape of Good Hope as Mediterranean importers began to stock up earlier for the winter holiday sales season. “There were lower inventories in Europe and stronger sales than importers expected,” he told the Journal of Commerce this week, with the reshuffling of alliances adding to the bottlenecks. “When you've got the redeployment of the new alliances happening, you're always going to have some initial operational challenges when things start arriving at different berthing windows, different setups,” he said. “And, of course, you have the traditional labor challenges,” he added. <h3>Dockworker strikes add to port woes </h3>Those labor challenges were coming on top of the high demand and operational challenges, with dockworker strikes continuing to impact European ports. A nationwide strike in Belgium on May 20 brought vessel traffic at the Port of Antwerp-Bruges to a halt, further stretching the system. Another national “day of action” will be held by unions in Belgium on June 25. Dockworker unions in Sweden launched strikes and blockade actions at multiple ports this week, with APM Terminals Gothenburg to be impacted on June 23 and 24. “There is not much free space in in the system, so this all has a knock-on impact,” Arnouts said. “If you are at a high level of frequency, you can imagine that adds to the disruption, on top of the uncertainty over tariffs that create shocks in cargo flows.” The latest data from Sea-Intelligence shows global schedule reliability has improved from 51.4% in January to 58.7% in April. Despite the steady improvement this year, Arnouts said it was too early to determine whether the better on-time performance was being seen in the port. He also highlighted a lack of transparency across the cargo supply chain that was a source of continuing frustration. ”When a container arrives at a container terminal, often we don’t know the next mode of transport,” he said. “Can you imagine that a container comes in, needs to go the next day on a barge to Basel or on a truck to Duisburg and often we don’t know that. “There is so much communication in the supply chain but still we need to fight to get the right ETA (estimated time of arrival) of a ship that's a part of the supply chain as well,” he added. “If you don't know when the ship arrives, you don't know what the next step will be.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

BRUSSELS – North European ports will continue to face disruption and congestion “for many more months” with little improvement in the series of factors contributing to the ongoing bottlenecks, according to an executive with the port of Antwerp-Bruges. Luc Arnouts, vice president of international relations and networks at Europe’s busiest port, said container yards were full at the main hubs, ships were arriving outside their berthing windows, intermittent strikes at some ports were having a knock-on effect, carrier alliances reshuffling capacity, low water on the Rhine and delays in hinterland moves were all holding up traffic. “Terminal occupancy is high in all the major ports so when ships do not arrive within their berthing window and arrive a day later, that disrupts the whole operation,” he told the CHAINge Europe supply chain conference here this week. Strong demand for much of the year has kept North European ports under pressure, slowing attempts to mitigate the bottlenecks. The latest Asia-to-Europe volume data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) is for April, when 1.64 million TEUs were transported westward, an increase of 8.6% year over year and a 6% gain from March. In the first four months of 2025, total Asia-Europe volume was up 9% year over year at 6.13 million TEUs, with the Asia-North Europe segment rising 6.6%, to 3.72 million TEUs, and Asia-Mediterranean surging 12.14%, to 2.4 million TEUs, according to CTS. Kuehne + Nagel’s SeaExplorer port visibility tool noted that port congestion in North European ports like Antwerp, Hamburg and Bremerhaven was extending transit times with delays in berthing, operational disruptions and high yard utilisation. The platform reported that container yards in Antwerp-Bruges were at 100% and carriers were reporting waiting times of up to three days, with truck slots limited and fully booked early each day. Container yards at Bremerhaven, one of the hubs for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd's Gemini Cooperation, is currently at 85%, while some terminals in Rotterdam are reportedly at 80% utilization. Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics, said ports in southern European were also seeing congestion due to longer transits around the Cape of Good Hope as Mediterranean importers began to stock up earlier for the winter holiday sales season. “There were lower inventories in Europe and stronger sales than importers expected,” he told the Journal of Commerce this week, with the reshuffling of alliances adding to the bottlenecks. “When you've got the redeployment of the new alliances happening, you're always going to have some initial operational challenges when things start arriving at different berthing windows, different setups,” he said. “And, of course, you have the traditional labor challenges,” he added. Dockworker strikes add to port woes Those labor challenges were coming on top of the high demand and operational challenges, with dockworker strikes continuing to impact European ports. A nationwide strike in Belgium on May 20 brought vessel traffic at the Port of Antwerp-Bruges to a halt, further stretching the system. Another national “day of action” will be held by unions in Belgium on June 25. Dockworker unions in Sweden launched strikes and blockade actions at multiple ports this week, with APM Terminals Gothenburg to be impacted on June 23 and 24. “There is not much free space in in the system, so this all has a knock-on impact,” Arnouts said. “If you are at a high level of frequency, you can imagine that adds to the disruption, on top of the uncertainty over tariffs that create shocks in cargo flows.” The latest data from Sea-Intelligence shows global schedule reliability has improved from 51.4% in January to 58.7% in April. Despite the steady improvement this year, Arnouts said it was too early to determine whether the better on-time performance was being seen in the port. He also highlighted a lack of transparency across the cargo supply chain that was a source of continuing frustration. ”When a container arrives at a container terminal, often we don’t know the next mode of transport,” he said. “Can you imagine that a container comes in, needs to go the next day on a barge to Basel or on a truck to Duisburg and often we don’t know that. “There is so much communication in the supply chain but still we need to fight to get the right ETA (estimated time of arrival) of a ship that's a part of the supply chain as well,” he added. “If you don't know when the ship arrives, you don't know what the next step will be.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

Months of congestion ahead for North Europe ports: Antwerp-Bruges

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A more than 30% one-week drop in rates from Asia to the US West Coast is showing that the import rush sparked by the temporary pause in higher US tariffs will apparently be short-lived.</div>

A more than 30% one-week drop in rates from Asia to the US West Coast is showing that the import rush sparked by the temporary pause in higher US tariffs will apparently be short-lived.

<div class="phx-topic">Spot rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific are in rapid retreat, a sign the import surge that came on the heels of the temporary pause in higher US tariffs won’t have the staying power many initially believed, market sources say. Rates to the West Coast were at $3,500 per FEU as of June 17, down 32% in just one week, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. East Coast rates of $6,500 were 11% lower on the week. Forwarders peg current rates from Asia to the West Coast in the low $3,000s per FEU, with East Coast rates in the low $6,000s per FEU. As recently as June 6, the West Coast rate was in the low $6,000s and the East Coast rate was in the low $7,000s, according to Platts. “It’s quite the turnaround,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. “What’s driving this? [Declining] demand primarily.” Bookings at Asian load ports have dropped, Khachatryan said, even as carriers have injected more capacity into the eastbound trans-Pacific recently to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pause-on-tariffs-prompts-us-retailers-to-upgrade-summer-import-forecast-6022230">take advantage of the demand</a> that resulted from the Trump administration in mid-May pausing its proposed 145% tariffs on China for 90 days. A separate tariff pause on other trading partners ends July 9. But the demand sparked by those moves appears fleeting. “I think everybody was expecting that big boom to last a lot longer,” a forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. “It might be over.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8c13a3e-9f5a-412f-8741-adbf5e1a7779"></dynamic-object></div>Just how “over” is uncertain. While some carriers may believe there will be another surge in demand when the Trump administration finally decides the fate of the tariffs on China and other countries in July and August, forwarders don’t see that happening. “I don’t expect it to increase again,” a second forwarder said. “This is all speculation. Anything could happen, but the trend doesn’t show for that.” <h3>Has peak season begun? </h3>Also in the mix is peak shipping season, which in recent years has begun as early as June and ran through October. But in the year of tariffs, nothing is showing to be typical. Some market participants say the recent demand surge could be considered the start of an early peak season that still has room to run. A carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce he does not believe rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific are inevitably headed lower still in the coming weeks.“Shippers are in a ‘wait and see’ mode on tariffs and seeking clarity on Trump’s declaration of deal with China bringing tariffs to 55%, meaning there might be another [demand] surge,” the executive said.Until then, prices are undoubtedly softening. “Vessel-specific rates to the East Coast from some China ports are a lot lower [than indexes] — $5,500,” Khachatryan said. “I saw $2,700 [to the West Coast] out there,” said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. Cook said an indicator of where rates in the trans-Pacific may be headed will come on July 1, when a number of carriers will apparently attempt to implement another general rate increase. “On July 1, they’ll try to do an increase,” he said. “They may try again in mid-month.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Spot rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific are in rapid retreat, a sign the import surge that came on the heels of the temporary pause in higher US tariffs won’t have the staying power many initially believed, market sources say. Rates to the West Coast were at $3,500 per FEU as of June 17, down 32% in just one week, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. East Coast rates of $6,500 were 11% lower on the week. Forwarders peg current rates from Asia to the West Coast in the low $3,000s per FEU, with East Coast rates in the low $6,000s per FEU. As recently as June 6, the West Coast rate was in the low $6,000s and the East Coast rate was in the low $7,000s, according to Platts. “It’s quite the turnaround,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. “What’s driving this? [Declining] demand primarily.” Bookings at Asian load ports have dropped, Khachatryan said, even as carriers have injected more capacity into the eastbound trans-Pacific recently to take advantage of the demand that resulted from the Trump administration in mid-May pausing its proposed 145% tariffs on China for 90 days. A separate tariff pause on other trading partners ends July 9. But the demand sparked by those moves appears fleeting. “I think everybody was expecting that big boom to last a lot longer,” a forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. “It might be over.” Just how “over” is uncertain. While some carriers may believe there will be another surge in demand when the Trump administration finally decides the fate of the tariffs on China and other countries in July and August, forwarders don’t see that happening. “I don’t expect it to increase again,” a second forwarder said. “This is all speculation. Anything could happen, but the trend doesn’t show for that.” Has peak season begun? Also in the mix is peak shipping season, which in recent years has begun as early as June and ran through October. But in the year of tariffs, nothing is showing to be typical. Some market participants say the recent demand surge could be considered the start of an early peak season that still has room to run. A carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce he does not believe rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific are inevitably headed lower still in the coming weeks. “Shippers are in a ‘wait and see’ mode on tariffs and seeking clarity on Trump’s declaration of deal with China bringing tariffs to 55%, meaning there might be another [demand] surge,” the executive said. Until then, prices are undoubtedly softening. “Vessel-specific rates to the East Coast from some China ports are a lot lower [than indexes] — $5,500,” Khachatryan said. “I saw $2,700 [to the West Coast] out there,” said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. Cook said an indicator of where rates in the trans-Pacific may be headed will come on July 1, when a number of carriers will apparently attempt to implement another general rate increase. “On July 1, they’ll try to do an increase,” he said. “They may try again in mid-month.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific spot rates falling as tariff-linked demand surge loses steam

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As agricultural exports enter their traditional peak season, it is prudent to be proactive now — while there is still an empty container supply extant in North America. </div>

As agricultural exports enter their traditional peak season, it is prudent to be proactive now — while there is still an empty container supply extant in North America.

<div class="phx-topic">“Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” is a folk song written by American singer-songwriter Pete Seeger. Legend has it that he wrote it while on an airplane to play at Oberlin College, one of the few locations willing to defy the McCarthy hiring blacklist imposed on him. Subsequently, the song became a mainstay of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War and has been covered by many artists and in many languages. The song utilizes the image of flowers and the cycle of life to depict the cyclical and destructive nature of war. And while I recognize that applying this metaphor to our industry’s cyclicality may be a step too far, I believe that the plaintive refrain, “Oh when will you/we ever learn; Oh, when will you/we ever learn?” certainly applies. In today’s transportation industry, there are very few of us that can remember the days of regulation when we struggled in an economy beset by stagflation. President Jimmy Carter then liberated our sector with deregulation. Because regulation — by design — was intended to ensure excess capacity, two decades of halcyon growth followed as this capacity was redeployed to productive applications. Along with globalization and outsourcing, logistics and supply chain management became industries in their own right, and intermodal was a key driver. However, about 25 years ago, the “free” capacity unleashed by deregulation had been consumed and growth needed to be supported by investment. Coincidentally, these changes took place against the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack. A bipartisan blue-ribbon commission was established, and three years later, they released their report. The findings were extensive. The government was not prepared and did not know how to respond. Problems with intelligence collection, analysis, sharing across agencies, and a lack of coordination among federal agencies exacerbated the challenges. In fact, the whole structure represented a maze of siloed and disaggregated responsibilities. When I read the report, I was struck by the potential for a future commission assembled to write many of the same findings about the transportation network in our country. I actually wrote a white paper in 2004 claiming that it would be unnecessary to convene an investigation of the inevitable supply chain meltdown because it was already written. All that was necessary was to take the 9/11 report and replace “national security” with “supply chain.” <h3>COVID-19 drove changes </h3>Of course, our industry did nothing to address these structural shortcomings and muddled on until COVID-19 struck. At that time, it seemed that our entire industry adopted the “4C” excuse — everything was the fault of COVID, China, Congestion and Chassis. Everyone was surprised that such a terrible fate could befall our industry. Even worse, our industry seemed to be represented by our least qualified spokespeople and most of the media had no idea of basic facts. Somehow, we all survived that mess. Many of the problems impacted the entire network. The maelstrom of detention and demurrage bills gave rise to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22). It increased the authority of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to promote the growth and development of US exports through an ocean transportation system that is competitive, efficient and economical. Beyond its mandate addressing complaints about detention and demurrage charges, OSRA-22 prohibits common ocean carriers, marine terminal operators or ocean transportation intermediaries from unreasonably refusing cargo space when available or resorting to other unfair or unjustly discriminatory methods. These protections were welcomed by the export community. However, we have to recognize that a complaint process after the fact may be insufficient to provide adequate protection if there is no effective remedy available. At times of high demand (and rates) for imports from Asia to North America, ocean carriers frequently evacuate all containers as soon as their import cargo is devanned. This moots the question of available space because there may be vessel space — but no empty containers.  As agricultural exports enter their traditional peak season, we believe that it is prudent to be proactive now, while there is still an empty container supply extant in North America. The Agriculture Transportation Coalition convenes June 16 for its annual meeting. I am sure Executive Director Peter Friedmann will have this high on the agenda; we do not want to be wondering where all the containers have gone. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>.</div>

“Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” is a folk song written by American singer-songwriter Pete Seeger. Legend has it that he wrote it while on an airplane to play at Oberlin College, one of the few locations willing to defy the McCarthy hiring blacklist imposed on him. Subsequently, the song became a mainstay of the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War and has been covered by many artists and in many languages. The song utilizes the image of flowers and the cycle of life to depict the cyclical and destructive nature of war. And while I recognize that applying this metaphor to our industry’s cyclicality may be a step too far, I believe that the plaintive refrain, “Oh when will you/we ever learn; Oh, when will you/we ever learn?” certainly applies. In today’s transportation industry, there are very few of us that can remember the days of regulation when we struggled in an economy beset by stagflation. President Jimmy Carter then liberated our sector with deregulation. Because regulation — by design — was intended to ensure excess capacity, two decades of halcyon growth followed as this capacity was redeployed to productive applications. Along with globalization and outsourcing, logistics and supply chain management became industries in their own right, and intermodal was a key driver. However, about 25 years ago, the “free” capacity unleashed by deregulation had been consumed and growth needed to be supported by investment. Coincidentally, these changes took place against the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attack. A bipartisan blue-ribbon commission was established, and three years later, they released their report. The findings were extensive. The government was not prepared and did not know how to respond. Problems with intelligence collection, analysis, sharing across agencies, and a lack of coordination among federal agencies exacerbated the challenges. In fact, the whole structure represented a maze of siloed and disaggregated responsibilities. When I read the report, I was struck by the potential for a future commission assembled to write many of the same findings about the transportation network in our country. I actually wrote a white paper in 2004 claiming that it would be unnecessary to convene an investigation of the inevitable supply chain meltdown because it was already written. All that was necessary was to take the 9/11 report and replace “national security” with “supply chain.” COVID-19 drove changes Of course, our industry did nothing to address these structural shortcomings and muddled on until COVID-19 struck. At that time, it seemed that our entire industry adopted the “4C” excuse — everything was the fault of COVID, China, Congestion and Chassis. Everyone was surprised that such a terrible fate could befall our industry. Even worse, our industry seemed to be represented by our least qualified spokespeople and most of the media had no idea of basic facts. Somehow, we all survived that mess. Many of the problems impacted the entire network. The maelstrom of detention and demurrage bills gave rise to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22). It increased the authority of the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to promote the growth and development of US exports through an ocean transportation system that is competitive, efficient and economical. Beyond its mandate addressing complaints about detention and demurrage charges, OSRA-22 prohibits common ocean carriers, marine terminal operators or ocean transportation intermediaries from unreasonably refusing cargo space when available or resorting to other unfair or unjustly discriminatory methods. These protections were welcomed by the export community. However, we have to recognize that a complaint process after the fact may be insufficient to provide adequate protection if there is no effective remedy available. At times of high demand (and rates) for imports from Asia to North America, ocean carriers frequently evacuate all containers as soon as their import cargo is devanned. This moots the question of available space because there may be vessel space — but no empty containers.  As agricultural exports enter their traditional peak season, we believe that it is prudent to be proactive now, while there is still an empty container supply extant in North America. The Agriculture Transportation Coalition convenes June 16 for its annual meeting. I am sure Executive Director Peter Friedmann will have this high on the agenda; we do not want to be wondering where all the containers have gone. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Supply chain

Act now before we wonder where all the containers have gone

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Trump administration’s tariff policy is yet another milestone that has shaken the US economy over the past 60 years, writes Ted Prince. </div>

The Trump administration’s tariff policy is yet another milestone that has shaken the US economy over the past 60 years, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Since the announcement of reciprocal tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day” last month, we have been bombarded by conflicting predictions of the possible benefits and disasters that may befall our country, our economy and our industry. What I find interesting is that the history of the past 60 years seems to have been forgotten. While there are many important dates, I will focus on four. <h3>Yanqui go home! </h3>I would start in April 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Marines and 82nd Airborne to the Dominican Republic to quell a civil war that broke out after a military junta. While the intervention was intended to protect US nationals, mission creep led to the deployment of over 22,000 American troops. While the invasion successfully reinstalled a conservative government, it increased distrust of the US. At the same time, companies such as Hewlett Packard were rolling out a continuous pipeline of electronic innovations. Their intention was to near-shore manufacturing in Latin America; however, the prevalence of “Yanqui Go Home!” made them look elsewhere. Japan and then the “Four Tigers” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) became the factory sites instead. The Vietnam War had become the first containerized war, and plentiful equipment was available to load back to the US. While electronics required factories, much of the manufacturing was cottage industries. For example, importers of blue jeans were buying from hundreds of small vendors. Ocean carrier consolidators would send pickup trucks into the New Territories to pick up loose articles of clothing (some which no doubt had been made in China) for consolidation at their facilities adjacent to the Kwai Tsing container terminals. <h3>Voluntary restraint </h3>In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to “voluntary export restraint,” which limited exports of passenger cars to the US. However, at the same time, they implemented a strategy of “transplants,” whereby cars were assembled in the US. Some might consider this an example of “reshoring;” however, it is not that simple. Initially, the plants were built in Japan, then disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled. Most of the parts (CKD: cars knocked down) came from Japan, so actual US content — other than labor — was minimal. Over time, suppliers proliferated along Interstates 65 and 75 to support these plants. However, many of these were also Japanese transplants. Some were joint ventures with US partners, but many were just US subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturers. Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison described this phenomenon in their 1982 work, “The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.” They pointed out the irony that the Japanese were successfully investing in US industrial sectors that scarcely a decade ago were said to be declining, uncompetitive, and suffering from deindustrialization. <h3>The Plaza Accord </h3>The Plaza Accord in September 1985 effectively devalued the dollar against other major currencies. Initially, the US trade deficit worsened, as imports rose in price with a devalued dollar. However, the devaluation made US exports cheaper for its trading partners to purchase, which grew the market in goods and services — which are unaccounted for in the current administration’s calculation. <h3>China and the WTO </h3>Finally, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). What followed was a massive dislocation in trade as China built world-class factories and world-class ports to ship goods throughout the world. Some of those factories have since relocated to nations with cheaper labor. However, a whole ecosystem of suppliers has grown up that supports the manufacturing and assembly of sophisticated products. China’s development took over 30 years. It was no shortcut. It was also the result of extensive industrial policy similar to what Japan and the Four Tigers had done previously. Most importantly, these policies did not deviate for decades and supported a long-term strategy whereby investment could be made with confidence. Our current politics are such that it is impossible to invest in today’s doctrine because it may no longer be applicable by the time the factory opens in three to eight years. In the past 30 years, trade has increased dramatically as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). However, while most economists believe that this has been good for the economy, the general public’s outlook is less sanguine. In large part, this is because trade’s impacts can vary widely: localized changes in jobs (both gains and losses) and reduced prices of goods and services. Freight is inextricably linked to trade. It has transformed our industry. We will no doubt have a ringside seat to the policy that is evolving. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

Since the announcement of reciprocal tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day” last month, we have been bombarded by conflicting predictions of the possible benefits and disasters that may befall our country, our economy and our industry. What I find interesting is that the history of the past 60 years seems to have been forgotten. While there are many important dates, I will focus on four. Yanqui go home! I would start in April 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Marines and 82nd Airborne to the Dominican Republic to quell a civil war that broke out after a military junta. While the intervention was intended to protect US nationals, mission creep led to the deployment of over 22,000 American troops. While the invasion successfully reinstalled a conservative government, it increased distrust of the US. At the same time, companies such as Hewlett Packard were rolling out a continuous pipeline of electronic innovations. Their intention was to near-shore manufacturing in Latin America; however, the prevalence of “Yanqui Go Home!” made them look elsewhere. Japan and then the “Four Tigers” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) became the factory sites instead. The Vietnam War had become the first containerized war, and plentiful equipment was available to load back to the US. While electronics required factories, much of the manufacturing was cottage industries. For example, importers of blue jeans were buying from hundreds of small vendors. Ocean carrier consolidators would send pickup trucks into the New Territories to pick up loose articles of clothing (some which no doubt had been made in China) for consolidation at their facilities adjacent to the Kwai Tsing container terminals. Voluntary restraint In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to “voluntary export restraint,” which limited exports of passenger cars to the US. However, at the same time, they implemented a strategy of “transplants,” whereby cars were assembled in the US. Some might consider this an example of “reshoring;” however, it is not that simple. Initially, the plants were built in Japan, then disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled. Most of the parts (CKD: cars knocked down) came from Japan, so actual US content — other than labor — was minimal. Over time, suppliers proliferated along Interstates 65 and 75 to support these plants. However, many of these were also Japanese transplants. Some were joint ventures with US partners, but many were just US subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturers. Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison described this phenomenon in their 1982 work, “The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.” They pointed out the irony that the Japanese were successfully investing in US industrial sectors that scarcely a decade ago were said to be declining, uncompetitive, and suffering from deindustrialization. The Plaza Accord The Plaza Accord in September 1985 effectively devalued the dollar against other major currencies. Initially, the US trade deficit worsened, as imports rose in price with a devalued dollar. However, the devaluation made US exports cheaper for its trading partners to purchase, which grew the market in goods and services — which are unaccounted for in the current administration’s calculation. China and the WTO Finally, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). What followed was a massive dislocation in trade as China built world-class factories and world-class ports to ship goods throughout the world. Some of those factories have since relocated to nations with cheaper labor. However, a whole ecosystem of suppliers has grown up that supports the manufacturing and assembly of sophisticated products. China’s development took over 30 years. It was no shortcut. It was also the result of extensive industrial policy similar to what Japan and the Four Tigers had done previously. Most importantly, these policies did not deviate for decades and supported a long-term strategy whereby investment could be made with confidence. Our current politics are such that it is impossible to invest in today’s doctrine because it may no longer be applicable by the time the factory opens in three to eight years. In the past 30 years, trade has increased dramatically as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). However, while most economists believe that this has been good for the economy, the general public’s outlook is less sanguine. In large part, this is because trade’s impacts can vary widely: localized changes in jobs (both gains and losses) and reduced prices of goods and services. Freight is inextricably linked to trade. It has transformed our industry. We will no doubt have a ringside seat to the policy that is evolving. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

S&P Global Platts editors engaging with market participants to assess the current value of freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates on major container trades produce container spot rates. The rates include bunker adjustment factors, general rate increases and emergency rare restoration. They also include low-sulfur fuel, equipment imbalance and repositioning surcharges. The rates exclude terminal handling, port security, overweight container, delivery, and detention and demurrage charges. [Platts](https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights)

North Asia to US West and East Coast container spot rates (Platts)

Platts North Asia to US East and West Coasts Weekly Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cargo landing at the country’s ports in July will be 20% higher than the forecast made just last month by the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates. </div>

Cargo landing at the country’s ports in July will be 20% higher than the forecast made just last month by the National Retail Federation and Hackett Associates.

<div class="phx-topic">US retailers on Monday significantly upgraded import projections through August amid the temporary pauses in effect on the so-called reciprocal tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. Cargo landing at the country’s ports in July will be 20% higher than the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-project-first-year-over-year-import-cut-in-19-months-as-tariffs-bite-6001817">forecast made in May</a> by the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates. Their June Global Port Tracker (GPT) shows the first upgrade to US import projections since February, before the first round of tariffs were announced in April. “Tariff reductions will lead to a surge in imports in June through August as importers take advantage of the various 90-day pauses,” Hackett Associates Founder Ben Hackett said. A pause on higher tariffs on most of the US’ trading partners is in effect until July 9, while the pause on the 145% tariff on imports from China is due to expire Aug. 14. The GPT’s updated forecast calls for July US imports of 2.13 million TEUs — up 20.3% from last month’s GPT but still well below the 2.32 million TEUs brought in during July 2024. Retailers expect August imports to reach 1.98 million TEUs, up 8.8% from May’s forecast. “[Shippers] are now looking to get those orders and cargo moving in order <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-bring-in-more-trans-pacific-container-services-amid-rate-surge-6012725">to bring as much merchandise</a> into the country as they can before the reciprocal tariff and additional China tariff pauses end in July and August,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy. June import projections were also upgraded from the May GPT, with retailers expecting 17.5% higher volumes at 2.01 million TEUs. Preliminary May volumes of 1.91 million TEUs are expected to be 5.5% higher than forecast last month. <h3>A soft Q4 </h3>But the summer surge is expected to end given the uncertainty over what will happen once the temporary tariff reprieves expire. Retailers slightly downgraded import expectations for September to 1.78 million TEUs, which would also be a 21.6% drop compared with the year-ago month. And in its initial forecast for October, the GPT projects imports of 1.8 million TEUs, almost 20% lower than October 2024. “The peak for the winter holidays will come early this year, making it simultaneous with the peak for the back-to-school season,” Hackett said. “If higher tariffs are not delayed again, we can expect the final four months of the year to see declining volumes of imports.” The updated forecast brings the first-half projection for US imports to 12.54 million TEUs, up 3.4% from expectations made in May and 3.7% higher than actual first-half 2024 volumes. The GPT is published monthly using import data collected from 13 ports on the US East, West and Gulf coasts. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

US retailers on Monday significantly upgraded import projections through August amid the temporary pauses in effect on the so-called reciprocal tariffs implemented by the Trump administration. Cargo landing at the country’s ports in July will be 20% higher than the forecast made in May by the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates. Their June Global Port Tracker (GPT) shows the first upgrade to US import projections since February, before the first round of tariffs were announced in April. “Tariff reductions will lead to a surge in imports in June through August as importers take advantage of the various 90-day pauses,” Hackett Associates Founder Ben Hackett said. A pause on higher tariffs on most of the US’ trading partners is in effect until July 9, while the pause on the 145% tariff on imports from China is due to expire Aug. 14. The GPT’s updated forecast calls for July US imports of 2.13 million TEUs — up 20.3% from last month’s GPT but still well below the 2.32 million TEUs brought in during July 2024. Retailers expect August imports to reach 1.98 million TEUs, up 8.8% from May’s forecast. “[Shippers] are now looking to get those orders and cargo moving in order to bring as much merchandise into the country as they can before the reciprocal tariff and additional China tariff pauses end in July and August,” said Jonathan Gold, NRF’s vice president for Supply Chain and Customs Policy. June import projections were also upgraded from the May GPT, with retailers expecting 17.5% higher volumes at 2.01 million TEUs. Preliminary May volumes of 1.91 million TEUs are expected to be 5.5% higher than forecast last month. A soft Q4 But the summer surge is expected to end given the uncertainty over what will happen once the temporary tariff reprieves expire. Retailers slightly downgraded import expectations for September to 1.78 million TEUs, which would also be a 21.6% drop compared with the year-ago month. And in its initial forecast for October, the GPT projects imports of 1.8 million TEUs, almost 20% lower than October 2024. “The peak for the winter holidays will come early this year, making it simultaneous with the peak for the back-to-school season,” Hackett said. “If higher tariffs are not delayed again, we can expect the final four months of the year to see declining volumes of imports.” The updated forecast brings the first-half projection for US imports to 12.54 million TEUs, up 3.4% from expectations made in May and 3.7% higher than actual first-half 2024 volumes. The GPT is published monthly using import data collected from 13 ports on the US East, West and Gulf coasts. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Pause on tariffs prompts US retailers to upgrade summer import forecast

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">TRAC Intermodal, DCLI and FlexiVan Leasing began unstacking chassis shortly after the Trump administration last month announced a 90-day pause on the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports.</div>

TRAC Intermodal, DCLI and FlexiVan Leasing began unstacking chassis shortly after the Trump administration last month announced a 90-day pause on the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports.

<div class="phx-topic">As an expected wave of imports from China begins arriving at US ports in the coming weeks, the country’s three largest marine chassis providers say they are pulling idle equipment from storage, inspecting and repairing units, and repositioning chassis to key inland hubs to avoid a repeat of the shortages seen during the pandemic. TRAC Intermodal, DCLI and FlexiVan Leasing, the US’ top three lessors by fleet size, respectively, began unstacking chassis shortly after the Trump administration last month announced a 90-day pause on the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports. TRAC owns more than 200,000 marine chassis, while DCLI has about 140,000 units and FlexiVan about 120,000. None of the companies disclosed the number of chassis they’ve taken out of long-term storage, but each said the total is in the “tens of thousands.” “Our current utilization, our working fleet, is rather soft,” said Val Noel, chief operating officer of TRAC. “But we think this could be a little bit like a tsunami, and we want to have extra capacity to make sure we don’t have any service disruptions.” TRAC will focus on repairing and positioning chassis in Chicago, Dallas and Memphis. Noel said chassis placed into Memphis can be redeployed to Kansas City, St. Louis and Omaha, if necessary, while chassis in Chicago can be redirected to the Ohio Valley. DCLI began unstacking equipment in Southern California days after the tariff pause announcement and has since expanded the process to inland locations including Chicago, Dallas and Memphis. “We have safety stocks in place in key markets and are working with our vendors to ensure we have the repair capacity necessary to respond to this demand,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s senior vice president of government and public relations. FlexiVan, which is exiting Southern California’s Pool of Pools, has focused on ensuring chassis availability for its core partner, Ocean Network Express (ONE). “[We are] working continuously to get pool chassis into a ready to use condition and fleeted into our private pool for ONE and other customers,” Flexi said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. FlexiVan in late April opened its new private chassis pool serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with FlexiVan Pool “designed to enhance our service capabilities for carriers and customers.” <h3>Getting repairs done now </h3>The chassis providers emphasized that pulling equipment out of long-term storage is not a one-day process. Units stacked for months, sometimes years, must undergo full inspections and safety checks, and in many cases, minor repairs before they are roadworthy. It can take several weeks to check lighting systems, brake lines, tires and structural components that can rust, corrode or suffer other weather-related fatigue. Technicians must also be available in sufficient numbers, and often work overtime, to meet repair deadlines. DCLI said it’s better prepared than during the pandemic because it did not significantly scale back repair operations with repair vendors when the market softened. DCLI said it learned how important it is to keep mechanics working even as volumes soften because widespread layoffs require rehiring and training later, which makes it difficult to complete repairs before a cargo surge. As a result, DCLI believes it can quickly inspect, repair and certify idle chassis without having to rebuild labor capacity from scratch. <h3>Communication is key </h3>Knowing when and where to deploy repaired units is crucial to prevent equipment shortages. Chassis providers rely on cargo forecasts from ocean carriers, railroads and shippers and data from the US Department of Transportation’s Freight Logistics Optimization Works (FLOW) initiative to position chassis ahead of surges. Under normal conditions, imports going to secondary cities such as Cincinnati, Columbus or St. Louis can be part of a block within a larger train to Chicago or Kansas City. During a surge, however, those cities may receive dedicated trains with double or triple the usual number of containers, flooding local terminals and straining chassis availability. “That’s one of the things that has beaten us in the past,” Noel acknowledged. “Normally a city might get a 3,000-foot block of containers, and during a surge it’s a 10,000-foot train. Both of our western roads (BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad) have been super in partnering with us, letting us know what’s coming so we can be prepared.” The landscape has also changed in recent years in ways that may increase supply chain resiliency. More trucking companies and cargo owners now operate private chassis fleets, reducing their reliance on shared pool equipment. Railroads have also adjusted terminal operations, placing more import containers into grounded stacks, allowing cargo owners to retrieve loads using their own equipment and easing pressure on the public pools managed by DCLI, TRAC, and FlexiVan. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

As an expected wave of imports from China begins arriving at US ports in the coming weeks, the country’s three largest marine chassis providers say they are pulling idle equipment from storage, inspecting and repairing units, and repositioning chassis to key inland hubs to avoid a repeat of the shortages seen during the pandemic. TRAC Intermodal, DCLI and FlexiVan Leasing, the US’ top three lessors by fleet size, respectively, began unstacking chassis shortly after the Trump administration last month announced a 90-day pause on the 145% tariffs on Chinese imports. TRAC owns more than 200,000 marine chassis, while DCLI has about 140,000 units and FlexiVan about 120,000. None of the companies disclosed the number of chassis they’ve taken out of long-term storage, but each said the total is in the “tens of thousands.” “Our current utilization, our working fleet, is rather soft,” said Val Noel, chief operating officer of TRAC. “But we think this could be a little bit like a tsunami, and we want to have extra capacity to make sure we don’t have any service disruptions.” TRAC will focus on repairing and positioning chassis in Chicago, Dallas and Memphis. Noel said chassis placed into Memphis can be redeployed to Kansas City, St. Louis and Omaha, if necessary, while chassis in Chicago can be redirected to the Ohio Valley. DCLI began unstacking equipment in Southern California days after the tariff pause announcement and has since expanded the process to inland locations including Chicago, Dallas and Memphis. “We have safety stocks in place in key markets and are working with our vendors to ensure we have the repair capacity necessary to respond to this demand,” said Mike O’Malley, DCLI’s senior vice president of government and public relations. FlexiVan, which is exiting Southern California’s Pool of Pools, has focused on ensuring chassis availability for its core partner, Ocean Network Express (ONE). “[We are] working continuously to get pool chassis into a ready to use condition and fleeted into our private pool for ONE and other customers,” Flexi said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce. FlexiVan in late April opened its new private chassis pool serving the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, with FlexiVan Pool “designed to enhance our service capabilities for carriers and customers.” Getting repairs done now The chassis providers emphasized that pulling equipment out of long-term storage is not a one-day process. Units stacked for months, sometimes years, must undergo full inspections and safety checks, and in many cases, minor repairs before they are roadworthy. It can take several weeks to check lighting systems, brake lines, tires and structural components that can rust, corrode or suffer other weather-related fatigue. Technicians must also be available in sufficient numbers, and often work overtime, to meet repair deadlines. DCLI said it’s better prepared than during the pandemic because it did not significantly scale back repair operations with repair vendors when the market softened. DCLI said it learned how important it is to keep mechanics working even as volumes soften because widespread layoffs require rehiring and training later, which makes it difficult to complete repairs before a cargo surge. As a result, DCLI believes it can quickly inspect, repair and certify idle chassis without having to rebuild labor capacity from scratch. Communication is key Knowing when and where to deploy repaired units is crucial to prevent equipment shortages. Chassis providers rely on cargo forecasts from ocean carriers, railroads and shippers and data from the US Department of Transportation’s Freight Logistics Optimization Works (FLOW) initiative to position chassis ahead of surges. Under normal conditions, imports going to secondary cities such as Cincinnati, Columbus or St. Louis can be part of a block within a larger train to Chicago or Kansas City. During a surge, however, those cities may receive dedicated trains with double or triple the usual number of containers, flooding local terminals and straining chassis availability. “That’s one of the things that has beaten us in the past,” Noel acknowledged. “Normally a city might get a 3,000-foot block of containers, and during a surge it’s a 10,000-foot train. Both of our western roads (BNSF Railway and Union Pacific Railroad) have been super in partnering with us, letting us know what’s coming so we can be prepared.” The landscape has also changed in recent years in ways that may increase supply chain resiliency. More trucking companies and cargo owners now operate private chassis fleets, reducing their reliance on shared pool equipment. Railroads have also adjusted terminal operations, placing more import containers into grounded stacks, allowing cargo owners to retrieve loads using their own equipment and easing pressure on the public pools managed by DCLI, TRAC, and FlexiVan. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Drayage

US chassis providers getting equipment ready for US import surge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But a rise in demand for general cargo will not be enough to offset the sharp decline in e-commerce shipments that followed the US clampdown in May on low-value imports from China. </div>

But a rise in demand for general cargo will not be enough to offset the sharp decline in e-commerce shipments that followed the US clampdown in May on low-value imports from China.

<div class="phx-topic">MUNICH — Trans-Pacific air cargo demand is showing signs of recovery amid restocking efforts in the US, with airlines bringing back some of the freighter capacity that had been shifted out of the trade lane to serve strengthening general cargo markets. But the volume generated by seasonal tech product launches, semiconductors, perishables and pharma — and boosted by shippers being forced into the air <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pause-in-tariff-hikes-drives-big-gains-in-trans-pacific-spot-rates-6017111">as China-US ocean space tightens</a> — will not replace the massive demand for e-commerce that filled dozens of freighters per day, according to Airbus. “E-commerce has been driving freight demand over the past years, and the big question out there is what’s going to happen to it,” Oliver von Tronchin, head of freighter marketing at the French aircraft manufacturer, told an Air Cargo Europe panel at the Transport Logistic exhibition this week. “What we are looking at is the change to the de minimis rule and the European equivalent, and if a $2.75 item is left with $100 flat fee from the US, people will not buy that item,” he added. After eliminating the duty-free exemption for low-value shipments from China valued at under $800 on May 2, the US on May 14 reduced the de minimis tariff on the low-value imports from 120% to 54%. Items sent via post from China to the US will be charged a flat fee of $100, regardless of value. The European Union is proposing a €2 handling fee for small parcels under €150 from China that would be paid by online retailers, such as Shein and Temu, but Brussels has not set an implementation date. In 2024, e-commerce shipments accounted for about 50% of China-to-US air freight volume, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Since the duty-free status of low-value Chinese imports was revoked in May, the volume has declined. The drop in trans-Pacific air freight is a leading factor in the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA’s) forecast of little to no growth in global air cargo volume for 2025, a huge climb down from the 12% jump in year over year demand in 2024. <h3>Challenge to match supply and demand </h3>Airlines are trying to match supply with demand, but those on the trans-Pacific are not being helped by the policy changes emanating from the White House. China-US tonnage in mid-May was down 25% year over year, with freighter capacity down 40%, according to Cargo Facts Consulting. As volume began to recover over the last two weeks, it encouraged carriers to bring back freighters, but with e-commerce demand muted, most of the returning lift was serving general cargo. C.H. Robinson noted in a market update this week that airlines were being cautious in adding capacity as demand recovers, with that balancing act expected to tighten available space and push rates higher throughout June, especially for non-priority shipments. The forwarder warned that end-of-quarter demand and tariff deadlines will likely create bottlenecks for last-minute bookings on China-US routes and advised shippers to explore alternate routes through Southeast Asia and book space two to three weeks in advance. The rising demand on the trans-Pacific can be seen in data from air cargo analyst Rotate, which shows an 11% increase in air cargo capacity on the Asia-North America route last week compared with the average capacity deployed over the previous four weeks. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d1642275-60f0-447f-84f8-8fd17fcb6d8f"></dynamic-object></div>China to US spot rates are rising in tandem with the increasing demand; as of June 1, they were up 14% from the first week of May at $4.31 per kilogram, according to Xeneta. Nadeem Sultan, senior vice president of cargo planning and freighters at Emirates SkyCargo, said general air freight volume was growing on Asia-North America but airlines remained in a holding pattern regarding the tariffs. “We are seeing that demand rise, but right now, everybody is waiting until mid-August when the 90-day pause in [China] tariffs ends to see what the permanent rule is going to be,” he said. “Depending on what the politicians say over the coming weeks, corporate companies are going to decide how high the risk is and whether they should be frontloading or not,” Sultan added. “But it is too early for them to make that decision now and I would say by the middle of July we will have more clarity.” <h3>E-commerce is ‘a way of life’ </h3>While e-commerce volume is currently under pressure, airlines and aircraft manufacturers at Air Cargo Europe were bullish on future air cargo demand. “Overall, e-commerce is still robust and will still be a sizable driver within air freight in the years ahead,” von Tronchin said. “It has become a way of life, and we’re used to that way of life, and I don’t think any of us are necessarily going to change it.” Jannie Davel, CEO of MSC Air Cargo, agreed, noting that e-commerce would remain a core component of air freight, and that the market would rebalance, although not to the high demand of the past. Davel added that shippers of general cargo were also adapting to changing trade flows as the tariffs forced Asian manufacturers to adjust production strategies. “We are seeing a lot of high-tech manufacturing shifting out of China to South Asia, so even if the tariffs are maintained, the trade will still be there,” he said. “It will maybe take some time to adjust, but then it will balance out.” The bullish view on air cargo demand was shared by Boeing and Airbus. Even with the US-China trade war roiling international markets and changing demand patterns, the plane makers have left their 20-year market forecasts unchanged. John Purdoch, director of product marketing of freighters at Boeing, said all the fundamentals in the market remained in place to support long-term growth. “Over the next 20 years, almost 3,000 new freighters will enter the market in all segments, and over 800 of those in the large, wide-body space,” Purdoch said. “We believe we are on a long-term growth path of 4% growth year over year for the next 20 years.” Von Tronchin said Airbus was “in the long-term game,” adding that the current disruptions to the market were temporary. “Our global market forecast is for 20 years, and as we saw in COVID-19 and after the financial crisis, air cargo has always come back to a trend of 3% to 4% growth per year,” he said. “Air cargo will remain a growth industry, independent of the short-term effects we are seeing.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

MUNICH — Trans-Pacific air cargo demand is showing signs of recovery amid restocking efforts in the US, with airlines bringing back some of the freighter capacity that had been shifted out of the trade lane to serve strengthening general cargo markets. But the volume generated by seasonal tech product launches, semiconductors, perishables and pharma — and boosted by shippers being forced into the air as China-US ocean space tightens — will not replace the massive demand for e-commerce that filled dozens of freighters per day, according to Airbus. “E-commerce has been driving freight demand over the past years, and the big question out there is what’s going to happen to it,” Oliver von Tronchin, head of freighter marketing at the French aircraft manufacturer, told an Air Cargo Europe panel at the Transport Logistic exhibition this week. “What we are looking at is the change to the de minimis rule and the European equivalent, and if a $2.75 item is left with $100 flat fee from the US, people will not buy that item,” he added. After eliminating the duty-free exemption for low-value shipments from China valued at under $800 on May 2, the US on May 14 reduced the de minimis tariff on the low-value imports from 120% to 54%. Items sent via post from China to the US will be charged a flat fee of $100, regardless of value. The European Union is proposing a €2 handling fee for small parcels under €150 from China that would be paid by online retailers, such as Shein and Temu, but Brussels has not set an implementation date. In 2024, e-commerce shipments accounted for about 50% of China-to-US air freight volume, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Since the duty-free status of low-value Chinese imports was revoked in May, the volume has declined. The drop in trans-Pacific air freight is a leading factor in the International Air Transport Association’s (IATA’s) forecast of little to no growth in global air cargo volume for 2025, a huge climb down from the 12% jump in year over year demand in 2024. Challenge to match supply and demand Airlines are trying to match supply with demand, but those on the trans-Pacific are not being helped by the policy changes emanating from the White House. China-US tonnage in mid-May was down 25% year over year, with freighter capacity down 40%, according to Cargo Facts Consulting. As volume began to recover over the last two weeks, it encouraged carriers to bring back freighters, but with e-commerce demand muted, most of the returning lift was serving general cargo. C.H. Robinson noted in a market update this week that airlines were being cautious in adding capacity as demand recovers, with that balancing act expected to tighten available space and push rates higher throughout June, especially for non-priority shipments. The forwarder warned that end-of-quarter demand and tariff deadlines will likely create bottlenecks for last-minute bookings on China-US routes and advised shippers to explore alternate routes through Southeast Asia and book space two to three weeks in advance. The rising demand on the trans-Pacific can be seen in data from air cargo analyst Rotate, which shows an 11% increase in air cargo capacity on the Asia-North America route last week compared with the average capacity deployed over the previous four weeks. China to US spot rates are rising in tandem with the increasing demand; as of June 1, they were up 14% from the first week of May at $4.31 per kilogram, according to Xeneta. Nadeem Sultan, senior vice president of cargo planning and freighters at Emirates SkyCargo, said general air freight volume was growing on Asia-North America but airlines remained in a holding pattern regarding the tariffs. “We are seeing that demand rise, but right now, everybody is waiting until mid-August when the 90-day pause in [China] tariffs ends to see what the permanent rule is going to be,” he said. “Depending on what the politicians say over the coming weeks, corporate companies are going to decide how high the risk is and whether they should be frontloading or not,” Sultan added. “But it is too early for them to make that decision now and I would say by the middle of July we will have more clarity.” E-commerce is ‘a way of life’ While e-commerce volume is currently under pressure, airlines and aircraft manufacturers at Air Cargo Europe were bullish on future air cargo demand. “Overall, e-commerce is still robust and will still be a sizable driver within air freight in the years ahead,” von Tronchin said. “It has become a way of life, and we’re used to that way of life, and I don’t think any of us are necessarily going to change it.” Jannie Davel, CEO of MSC Air Cargo, agreed, noting that e-commerce would remain a core component of air freight, and that the market would rebalance, although not to the high demand of the past. Davel added that shippers of general cargo were also adapting to changing trade flows as the tariffs forced Asian manufacturers to adjust production strategies. “We are seeing a lot of high-tech manufacturing shifting out of China to South Asia, so even if the tariffs are maintained, the trade will still be there,” he said. “It will maybe take some time to adjust, but then it will balance out.” The bullish view on air cargo demand was shared by Boeing and Airbus. Even with the US-China trade war roiling international markets and changing demand patterns, the plane makers have left their 20-year market forecasts unchanged. John Purdoch, director of product marketing of freighters at Boeing, said all the fundamentals in the market remained in place to support long-term growth. “Over the next 20 years, almost 3,000 new freighters will enter the market in all segments, and over 800 of those in the large, wide-body space,” Purdoch said. “We believe we are on a long-term growth path of 4% growth year over year for the next 20 years.” Von Tronchin said Airbus was “in the long-term game,” adding that the current disruptions to the market were temporary. “Our global market forecast is for 20 years, and as we saw in COVID-19 and after the financial crisis, air cargo has always come back to a trend of 3% to 4% growth per year,” he said. “Air cargo will remain a growth industry, independent of the short-term effects we are seeing.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo

Signs of air cargo recovery on the trans-Pacific as freighter aircraft return

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE ON TPM26

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While just 2% to 3% of global container traffic transits the key chokepoint, any restrictions would further tie up global vessel capacity and cut off the ports of Jebel Ali and Abu Dhabi. </div>

While just 2% to 3% of global container traffic transits the key chokepoint, any restrictions would further tie up global vessel capacity and cut off the ports of Jebel Ali and Abu Dhabi.

<div class="phx-topic">The Iranian government’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz amid Israel’s attack on the country would tie up already stretched global container capacity, cut off Jebel Ali and Abu Dhabi ports and put upward pressure on bunker fuel costs. Just 2% to 3% of global container traffic moves through the vital chokepoint for crude oil transport, according to data from Container Trade Statistics (CTS). Nonetheless, a restriction on container traffic through the strait, making deployed tonnage ineffective, would put upward pressure on freight rates and extend transit times. Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis warned of major problems for container shipping should the strait be closed. “At the time of writing this, the two countries are exchanging continuous barrages of missiles and drones,” Sea-Intelligence CEO Alan Murphy wrote in the Sunday Spotlight newsletter. “For now, this has not led to any impact on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and we should hope this to not become the case. If that happens, it will have a significant impact on container shipping flows to the major transshipment hubs in the region.” Dubai’s Jebel Ali was the 10th largest global container port as measured by volume in 2024, according to Alphaliner, while Khalifa is Abu Dhabi’s flagship container port. The container shipping market had already been stretched due to hostilities in the region, with container lines diverting away from the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea since late 2023 because of attacks from Houthi militants operating in Yemen. Most recently, carriers have repositioned capacity back to the trans-Pacific to handle rebounding Asia import volumes amid a pause in US tariffs. The idling of the global fleet is under 1% and the charter market for container ships remains elevated, according to analyst Alphaliner, reflecting stretched container capacity from not just Red Sea diversions, but port congestion in Europe, and, to a lesser degree, in Asia. According to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, more than 17 million barrels of crude oil each day move through the Strait of Hormuz, coming not just from Iran, but from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. That is more than 20% of daily global crude production. “If the Strait of Hormuz was to close, in the midterm it would be disruptive to the oil and bunker industry if they’re not able to get crude product transported out of the Persian Gulf, which is going to lead to a price disruption,” said Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics. “But stockpiles are not low, and I think overall, it would have to be closed for a longer period of time before it impacted prices in the longer term.” Crude oil prices, which jumped 7% Friday after Israel’s initial attack on Iran, were softer in early trading Monday. Benchmark Brent crude was trading at $71.37 per barrel, down about 4%, according to Bloomberg. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Iranian government’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz amid Israel’s attack on the country would tie up already stretched global container capacity, cut off Jebel Ali and Abu Dhabi ports and put upward pressure on bunker fuel costs. Just 2% to 3% of global container traffic moves through the vital chokepoint for crude oil transport, according to data from Container Trade Statistics (CTS). Nonetheless, a restriction on container traffic through the strait, making deployed tonnage ineffective, would put upward pressure on freight rates and extend transit times. Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis warned of major problems for container shipping should the strait be closed. “At the time of writing this, the two countries are exchanging continuous barrages of missiles and drones,” Sea-Intelligence CEO Alan Murphy wrote in the Sunday Spotlight newsletter. “For now, this has not led to any impact on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and we should hope this to not become the case. If that happens, it will have a significant impact on container shipping flows to the major transshipment hubs in the region.” Dubai’s Jebel Ali was the 10th largest global container port as measured by volume in 2024, according to Alphaliner, while Khalifa is Abu Dhabi’s flagship container port. The container shipping market had already been stretched due to hostilities in the region, with container lines diverting away from the Gulf of Aden and Red Sea since late 2023 because of attacks from Houthi militants operating in Yemen. Most recently, carriers have repositioned capacity back to the trans-Pacific to handle rebounding Asia import volumes amid a pause in US tariffs. The idling of the global fleet is under 1% and the charter market for container ships remains elevated, according to analyst Alphaliner, reflecting stretched container capacity from not just Red Sea diversions, but port congestion in Europe, and, to a lesser degree, in Asia. According to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, more than 17 million barrels of crude oil each day move through the Strait of Hormuz, coming not just from Iran, but from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Qatar. That is more than 20% of daily global crude production. “If the Strait of Hormuz was to close, in the midterm it would be disruptive to the oil and bunker industry if they’re not able to get crude product transported out of the Persian Gulf, which is going to lead to a price disruption,” said Michael Aldwell, Kuehne +Nagel’s executive vice president of sea logistics. “But stockpiles are not low, and I think overall, it would have to be closed for a longer period of time before it impacted prices in the longer term.” Crude oil prices, which jumped 7% Friday after Israel’s initial attack on Iran, were softer in early trading Monday. Benchmark Brent crude was trading at $71.37 per barrel, down about 4%, according to Bloomberg. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Closure of Strait of Hormuz would further stretch global container capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">It is reasonable to assume the larger container carriers are now going to earn above historical returns, but they will not be immune from significant dips when supply significantly exceeds demand, writes Jeremy Masters.</div>

It is reasonable to assume the larger container carriers are now going to earn above historical returns, but they will not be immune from significant dips when supply significantly exceeds demand, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">For the early decades of container shipping, it was almost inconceivable that carriers could deliver a consistently good return on capital. Today, we see several carriers making profits that are the envy of other industries, and as recently reported by Alphaliner, six publicly-listed container carriers have a market valuation over $10 billion. Has the industry matured to the point where carriers can expect good returns to be the norm? <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6025533_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The answer is a qualified one. The major carriers are in a much stronger position to control the supply lever than they were <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/current-market-allows-top-ocean-carriers-to-strengthen-long-term-position-6016964">because of consolidation in the industry and reduction in the non-operating fleet</a>. The increase in vertical integration — which will take a dramatic step forward if the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-canal-mulls-developing-corozal-to-allay-neutrality-fears-over-hutchison-deal-6023330">acquisition of Hutchison Ports Holdings by Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminals subsidiary proceeds</a> — means that the big carriers are increasingly controlling an integral part of their product as well as its cost. The purchase of large amounts of new and secondhand tonnage in smaller sizes means that these carriers can also run their own regional and feeder systems off these acquired terminals — again controlling quality and cost. This becomes a powerful combination to compete against, and if a carrier outside the big league or a new entry wanted to emulate this set-up, the investment would be very large. That means there are some real barriers to entry. The position is different for operators in selected deep-sea trades, regional carriers and feeder specialists. These carriers can’t contend with volatile individual trades, have less control of supply and don’t have the resources available to ride out extended storms without withdrawing, or worse. They also have less control of their overall product because they don’t have the means to integrate vertically. Those who are agile and find the right niches can make a good return, but the stronger the big guys get, the more they can marginalize smaller operators or simply acquire them. We have a broadly two-tier industry then — the truly global carriers (and within them the bigger ones pursuing vertical integration who are getting stronger) — and the rest. And the punching power is widening. The picture is reasonably rosy for the big carriers, but they do not have it entirely their own way: <h3>Control of supply, not demand </h3>Trade growth does not follow the clear patterns seen in early containerization, and geopolitics makes it increasingly unpredictable. There are good reasons to believe that global demand for container space will stay up — even if there is a redistribution — but carriers cannot rely on robust trade growth. Newbuild orders in recent years have considerably exceeded anything that could be expected on the demand side, and at some point, the gap between supply and demand will be unbridgeable with major downward pressure on rates. <h3>High profits are an attraction </h3>Up until comparatively recently, many potential investors and operators in other transport modes could have looked at the containerized shipping industry as a bit of a basket case. As the fundamentals change in favor of the carriers, players with deep pockets may take another look. The purchase and upscaling of an existing player become possible. <h3>New business model </h3>Carriers have innovated considerably with physical products but have been rather conservative about adopting new ways to market their products. This could become a backdoor way for a smaller carrier to emerge into the big league or a company using a different model in another mode to make a significant entry. <h3>Environmental factors </h3>Carriers can be commended for making some tough decisions to invest in more environmentally friendly tonnage when the ultimate winners in the alternative fuels race are unclear. This could be quite damaging for those who have made less-than-optimal picks, or beneficial for a later entrant. Meanwhile, the purchase of considerable amounts of old secondhand tonnage may become a dubious investment for some carriers if environmental regulations and fees tighten further. There are clearly other factors, such as how individual companies are run, that could enter the picture. But the above are tangible threats that are difficult for carriers to quantify and even harder to control. Looking at the whole picture, it is reasonable to assume that the bigger container carriers are now going to earn above historical returns, but they will not be immune from significant dips when supply significantly exceeds demand. By virtue of their own recent success, they will also be facing fresh interest from aspirants within and outside the industry harboring ambitions to be at the top table — potentially touting a different business model. Perhaps not a golden age yet, but certainly an emergence from the dark ages. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>.</div>

For the early decades of container shipping, it was almost inconceivable that carriers could deliver a consistently good return on capital. Today, we see several carriers making profits that are the envy of other industries, and as recently reported by Alphaliner, six publicly-listed container carriers have a market valuation over $10 billion. Has the industry matured to the point where carriers can expect good returns to be the norm? The answer is a qualified one. The major carriers are in a much stronger position to control the supply lever than they were because of consolidation in the industry and reduction in the non-operating fleet . The increase in vertical integration — which will take a dramatic step forward if the acquisition of Hutchison Ports Holdings by Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s terminals subsidiary proceeds — means that the big carriers are increasingly controlling an integral part of their product as well as its cost. The purchase of large amounts of new and secondhand tonnage in smaller sizes means that these carriers can also run their own regional and feeder systems off these acquired terminals — again controlling quality and cost. This becomes a powerful combination to compete against, and if a carrier outside the big league or a new entry wanted to emulate this set-up, the investment would be very large. That means there are some real barriers to entry. The position is different for operators in selected deep-sea trades, regional carriers and feeder specialists. These carriers can’t contend with volatile individual trades, have less control of supply and don’t have the resources available to ride out extended storms without withdrawing, or worse. They also have less control of their overall product because they don’t have the means to integrate vertically. Those who are agile and find the right niches can make a good return, but the stronger the big guys get, the more they can marginalize smaller operators or simply acquire them. We have a broadly two-tier industry then — the truly global carriers (and within them the bigger ones pursuing vertical integration who are getting stronger) — and the rest. And the punching power is widening. The picture is reasonably rosy for the big carriers, but they do not have it entirely their own way: Control of supply, not demand Trade growth does not follow the clear patterns seen in early containerization, and geopolitics makes it increasingly unpredictable. There are good reasons to believe that global demand for container space will stay up — even if there is a redistribution — but carriers cannot rely on robust trade growth. Newbuild orders in recent years have considerably exceeded anything that could be expected on the demand side, and at some point, the gap between supply and demand will be unbridgeable with major downward pressure on rates. High profits are an attraction Up until comparatively recently, many potential investors and operators in other transport modes could have looked at the containerized shipping industry as a bit of a basket case. As the fundamentals change in favor of the carriers, players with deep pockets may take another look. The purchase and upscaling of an existing player become possible. New business model Carriers have innovated considerably with physical products but have been rather conservative about adopting new ways to market their products. This could become a backdoor way for a smaller carrier to emerge into the big league or a company using a different model in another mode to make a significant entry. Environmental factors Carriers can be commended for making some tough decisions to invest in more environmentally friendly tonnage when the ultimate winners in the alternative fuels race are unclear. This could be quite damaging for those who have made less-than-optimal picks, or beneficial for a later entrant. Meanwhile, the purchase of considerable amounts of old secondhand tonnage may become a dubious investment for some carriers if environmental regulations and fees tighten further. There are clearly other factors, such as how individual companies are run, that could enter the picture. But the above are tangible threats that are difficult for carriers to quantify and even harder to control. Looking at the whole picture, it is reasonable to assume that the bigger container carriers are now going to earn above historical returns, but they will not be immune from significant dips when supply significantly exceeds demand. By virtue of their own recent success, they will also be facing fresh interest from aspirants within and outside the industry harboring ambitions to be at the top table — potentially touting a different business model. Perhaps not a golden age yet, but certainly an emergence from the dark ages. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

Are we entering a ‘golden age’ for major ocean carriers?

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The shutdown, due to begin Tuesday evening, will disrupt a broad range of businesses that use DHL, from apparel brands such as Lululemon to industrial companies including Siemens Canada.</div>

The shutdown, due to begin Tuesday evening, will disrupt a broad range of businesses that use DHL, from apparel brands such as Lululemon to industrial companies including Siemens Canada.

<div class="phx-topic">DHL Express, one of the top road carriers in Canada, will stop accepting parcels within the country and between Canada and the US until further notice due to a contract dispute with union workers north of the border and new federal legislation from Ottawa that restricts the use of replacement workers. The shutdown, due to begin Tuesday evening, will disrupt a broad range of businesses that use DHL, from apparel brands such as Lululemon to industrial companies including Siemens Canada. Major e-commercial retailers Shein and Temu would also be impacted. The halt will impact parcel operations in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Quebec. “DHL Express will continue discussions with [labor] over a new collective agreement that provides fair compensation to our team members while ensuring a sustainable, long-term foundation for our operations in Canada,” DHL said in an advisory Monday. “We remain committed to the process and hope to reach an agreement soon that allows us to resume the provision of the high quality of service our customers have come to expect of DHL.” Other divisions, such as DHL’s less-than-truckload operations and supply chain solutions business, are not affected. DHL was unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement with Unifor, the union representing more than 2,100 truck drivers and warehouse and sortation workers responsible for parcel deliveries. Union labor walked off the job June 8, prompting DHL to use replacement workers to handle parcel volumes. On June 20, however, <a href="https://www.parl.ca/legisinfo/en/bill/44-1/c-58">legislation will go into effect</a> prohibiting the use of replacement workers, leaving no legal means for DHL to keep parcel operations running without union labor. Violating the new regulation would result in a C$100,000 ($73,250) per day fine. The primary dispute in the contract negotiations is the size of proposed salary increases for hourly employees and owner-operator truck drivers. <h3>Alternatives could minimize disruption </h3>Competitors FedEx, UPS and Canada Post and regional carriers such as Purolator remain operational and will likely absorb additional volumes until the DHL dispute is resolved, which may minimize the disruption to shippers. Nevertheless, costs could rise in the short term. UPS enacted <a href="https://assets.ups.com/adobe/assets/urn:aaid:aem:2840054d-e7bd-47d5-925d-a940bcd4efe5/original/as/surge-fee-us-en.pdf">surge fees</a> last month on US-to-Canada parcels in anticipation of DHL’s labor disruption. The fees consist of an additional $1.25 per pound for UPS Worldwide Economy packages to Canada and $0.49 per package on UPS Standard service to Canada and expedited service such as UPS Worldwide Express. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

DHL Express, one of the top road carriers in Canada, will stop accepting parcels within the country and between Canada and the US until further notice due to a contract dispute with union workers north of the border and new federal legislation from Ottawa that restricts the use of replacement workers. The shutdown, due to begin Tuesday evening, will disrupt a broad range of businesses that use DHL, from apparel brands such as Lululemon to industrial companies including Siemens Canada. Major e-commercial retailers Shein and Temu would also be impacted. The halt will impact parcel operations in Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Quebec. “DHL Express will continue discussions with [labor] over a new collective agreement that provides fair compensation to our team members while ensuring a sustainable, long-term foundation for our operations in Canada,” DHL said in an advisory Monday. “We remain committed to the process and hope to reach an agreement soon that allows us to resume the provision of the high quality of service our customers have come to expect of DHL.” Other divisions, such as DHL’s less-than-truckload operations and supply chain solutions business, are not affected. DHL was unable to reach a collective bargaining agreement with Unifor, the union representing more than 2,100 truck drivers and warehouse and sortation workers responsible for parcel deliveries. Union labor walked off the job June 8, prompting DHL to use replacement workers to handle parcel volumes. On June 20, however, legislation will go into effect prohibiting the use of replacement workers, leaving no legal means for DHL to keep parcel operations running without union labor. Violating the new regulation would result in a C$100,000 ($73,250) per day fine. The primary dispute in the contract negotiations is the size of proposed salary increases for hourly employees and owner-operator truck drivers. Alternatives could minimize disruption Competitors FedEx, UPS and Canada Post and regional carriers such as Purolator remain operational and will likely absorb additional volumes until the DHL dispute is resolved, which may minimize the disruption to shippers. Nevertheless, costs could rise in the short term. UPS enacted surge fees last month on US-to-Canada parcels in anticipation of DHL’s labor disruption. The fees consist of an additional $1.25 per pound for UPS Worldwide Economy packages to Canada and $0.49 per package on UPS Standard service to Canada and expedited service such as UPS Worldwide Express. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

DHL Express to suspend Canadian parcel business amid labor dispute

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A wide-ranging report commissioned by Canada’s Labor Ministry says British Columbia’s ports are vulnerable to strikes in part because of disparate longshore unions involved in contract talks. </div>

A wide-ranging report commissioned by Canada’s Labor Ministry says British Columbia’s ports are vulnerable to strikes in part because of disparate longshore unions involved in contract talks.

<div class="phx-topic">Fragmented union bargaining and government backstops during contract talks are factors behind the longshore strikes and other labor unrest that have gripped Canada’s West Coast ports during the last two years, a report commissioned by the Labor Ministry report has found. The report, released Thursday, suggests British Columbia’s longshore unions need to bargain with employers on a province-wide basis, rather than a port- or employer-specific basis, to avoid further unrest that jeopardizes Canada’s supply chains. It also urged early government intervention to head off strikes. The 156-page report, which was commissioned by the Labor Ministry and developed by Canadian labor relations experts Vincent Ready and Amanda Rogers, looks into the labor disputes that have hit British Columbia’s ports. It was commissioned in July 2023 by Labor Minister Steve MacKinnon after <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ilwu-canadas-contract-rejection-thrusts-bc-ports-in-limbo-5216091">longshore workers rejected</a> a contract proposal that led to a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ilwu-canada-contract-ratification-ensures-bc-port-peace-5220992">13-day strike at Vancouver and other Canadian West Coast ports</a>. The inquiry found that while “there exists a mature bargaining relationship among the parties, it is far from healthy, and is marred by ongoing conflicts, misaligned priorities and a fiercely protectionist stance by the union.” Mike Leonard, president of the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA), said in a statement that if the report’s findings are put in place, it “will advance long-term stability at Canada’s West Coast ports to the benefit of all parties.” ILWU Canada could not immediately be reached to comment on the report. <h3>ILWU locals control talks </h3>The BCMEA negotiates contracts with the Canadian affiliate of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). ILWU Canada represents five separate, regional ILWU locals, which are the recognized bargaining agents with employers at different ports. While ILWU Canada is ostensibly the main negotiator, it is the locals who direct contract talks, vote on tentative agreements and determine whether to strike. ILWU Canada is not recognized by employers as a union and its president does not have a vote on contract matters. The report said that longshore labor negotiations would be more efficient if maritime employers could negotiate on a province-wide basis as “the current model of collective bargaining with different bargaining units is contributing to the frequency of labor disruptions.” It noted that other longshore unions in Canada negotiate province-wide contracts. The ILWU locals have maintained that different work conditions at each employer and port necessitate the need for regional representation. However, the report noted that ILWU local members can work at different ports throughout the province, indicating that work conditions at each location are similar enough for a province-wide contract. “While it is true each ILWU local maintains its own independent leadership and union members, the issuance of a geographic certification will not interfere with those arrangements,” the report said. It added that recognizing ILWU Canada or another entity as the main union representative “will bring stability and certainty to future rounds of bargaining.” <h3>Foremen role not distinct </h3>The Labor Ministry’s inquiry coincided with another work stoppage in November 2024, when the BCMEA shut out ILWU Local 514, which represents port foremen, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bc-container-ports-set-for-shutdown-after-foremen-begin-strike-5785499">after it took an illegal strike vote</a> during protracted negotiations with maritime employers. Local 514 has separate bargaining agreements with each of the province’s maritime employers and can negotiate with each one separately. However, Local 514 has “voluntarily” negotiated with the BCMEA for decades, the report said. Even though it started the last negotiations with the BCMEA, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dp-worlds-centerm-project-at-heart-of-employer-union-dispute-in-vancouver-5225162">Local 514 targeted one employer — DP World</a> — for a separate deal that led to the illegal strike vote. “The union’s conduct was an attempt to single out one employer, just as the parties acquired their right to strike or lock out, and subverted the collective bargaining process that was underway,” the report said. “The union cannot ride two horses at the same time and then pick the one that best suits its interests late in the race.” Local 514 maintains the foremen role is different enough than other longshore crafts for a separate union and contract. However, the report said foremen could also be rolled up into a province-wide contract because their jobs are not that different than other longshore workers. “We do not accept that the interests of ILWU Local 514 members are so distinct that they cannot effectively be advanced as part of a geographic certification that also includes longshore workers,” the report said. <h3>Government overshadows talks </h3>The report also took to task the default move of maritime employers and longshore unions to look to government intervention when contract negotiations break down. The report noted that the federal government has intervened in nine of 13 British Columbia port disputes since 1972. “This reliance on government intervention has created an environment where the safety net of binding arbitration overshadows the collective bargaining process,” the report said. The inquiry suggested that a “special mediator” be appointed early in the bargaining process. The special mediator would monitor the progress of talks and help usher them through before the government needs to force a deal on both sides. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Fragmented union bargaining and government backstops during contract talks are factors behind the longshore strikes and other labor unrest that have gripped Canada’s West Coast ports during the last two years, a report commissioned by the Labor Ministry report has found. The report, released Thursday, suggests British Columbia’s longshore unions need to bargain with employers on a province-wide basis, rather than a port- or employer-specific basis, to avoid further unrest that jeopardizes Canada’s supply chains. It also urged early government intervention to head off strikes. The 156-page report, which was commissioned by the Labor Ministry and developed by Canadian labor relations experts Vincent Ready and Amanda Rogers, looks into the labor disputes that have hit British Columbia’s ports. It was commissioned in July 2023 by Labor Minister Steve MacKinnon after longshore workers rejected a contract proposal that led to a 13-day strike at Vancouver and other Canadian West Coast ports . The inquiry found that while “there exists a mature bargaining relationship among the parties, it is far from healthy, and is marred by ongoing conflicts, misaligned priorities and a fiercely protectionist stance by the union.” Mike Leonard, president of the British Columbia Maritime Employers Association (BCMEA), said in a statement that if the report’s findings are put in place, it “will advance long-term stability at Canada’s West Coast ports to the benefit of all parties.” ILWU Canada could not immediately be reached to comment on the report. ILWU locals control talks The BCMEA negotiates contracts with the Canadian affiliate of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU). ILWU Canada represents five separate, regional ILWU locals, which are the recognized bargaining agents with employers at different ports. While ILWU Canada is ostensibly the main negotiator, it is the locals who direct contract talks, vote on tentative agreements and determine whether to strike. ILWU Canada is not recognized by employers as a union and its president does not have a vote on contract matters. The report said that longshore labor negotiations would be more efficient if maritime employers could negotiate on a province-wide basis as “the current model of collective bargaining with different bargaining units is contributing to the frequency of labor disruptions.” It noted that other longshore unions in Canada negotiate province-wide contracts. The ILWU locals have maintained that different work conditions at each employer and port necessitate the need for regional representation. However, the report noted that ILWU local members can work at different ports throughout the province, indicating that work conditions at each location are similar enough for a province-wide contract. “While it is true each ILWU local maintains its own independent leadership and union members, the issuance of a geographic certification will not interfere with those arrangements,” the report said. It added that recognizing ILWU Canada or another entity as the main union representative “will bring stability and certainty to future rounds of bargaining.” Foremen role not distinct The Labor Ministry’s inquiry coincided with another work stoppage in November 2024, when the BCMEA shut out ILWU Local 514, which represents port foremen, after it took an illegal strike vote during protracted negotiations with maritime employers. Local 514 has separate bargaining agreements with each of the province’s maritime employers and can negotiate with each one separately. However, Local 514 has “voluntarily” negotiated with the BCMEA for decades, the report said. Even though it started the last negotiations with the BCMEA, Local 514 targeted one employer — DP World — for a separate deal that led to the illegal strike vote. “The union’s conduct was an attempt to single out one employer, just as the parties acquired their right to strike or lock out, and subverted the collective bargaining process that was underway,” the report said. “The union cannot ride two horses at the same time and then pick the one that best suits its interests late in the race.” Local 514 maintains the foremen role is different enough than other longshore crafts for a separate union and contract. However, the report said foremen could also be rolled up into a province-wide contract because their jobs are not that different than other longshore workers. “We do not accept that the interests of ILWU Local 514 members are so distinct that they cannot effectively be advanced as part of a geographic certification that also includes longshore workers,” the report said. Government overshadows talks The report also took to task the default move of maritime employers and longshore unions to look to government intervention when contract negotiations break down. The report noted that the federal government has intervened in nine of 13 British Columbia port disputes since 1972. “This reliance on government intervention has created an environment where the safety net of binding arbitration overshadows the collective bargaining process,” the report said. The inquiry suggested that a “special mediator” be appointed early in the bargaining process. The special mediator would monitor the progress of talks and help usher them through before the government needs to force a deal on both sides. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Fred Smith, FedEx founder and visionary, dead at 80

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Pause on tariffs prompts US retailers to upgrade summer import forecast

US chassis providers getting equipment ready for US import surge

Signs of air cargo recovery on the trans-Pacific as freighter aircraft return

Recent Commentary

Act now before we wonder where all the containers have gone

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

Top 5 Most Read Stories