<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The failure of Hanjin Shipping has raised profound questions regarding the risks of ocean container transportation in corporate boardrooms throughout the world.</div>

The failure of Hanjin Shipping has raised profound questions regarding the risks of ocean container transportation in corporate boardrooms throughout the world.

<div>With 33 Hanjin Shipping vessels and all their containers <a>still unable to be unloaded</a> three weeks after <a>the bankruptcy</a> of the world’s seventh-largest container line, profound questions regarding the risks of ocean container transportation are being raised in corporate boardrooms throughout the world.The questions boil down to these: could the collapse have been anticipated and avoided? What can be done to protect the company from another potential carrier failure?Although these are the right questions of course, the answers unfortunately aren’t simple or straightforward.There is no question that risk, or at least perception of risk, by shippers regarding container lines is...

With 33 Hanjin Shipping vessels and all their containers still unable to be unloaded three weeks after the bankruptcy of the world’s seventh-largest container line, profound questions regarding the risks of ocean container transportation are being raised in corporate boardrooms throughout the world. The questions boil down to these: could the collapse have been anticipated and avoided? What can be done to protect the company from another potential carrier failure? Although these are the right questions of course, the answers unfortunately aren’t simple or straightforward. There is no question that risk, or at least perception of risk, by shippers regarding container lines is significantly heightened following the Hanjin collapse. The bankruptcy “shatters the complacency that major carriers are immune to failure and can stomach prolonged years of low rates and financial losses,” Drewry wrote on Sept. 4 shortly after the Aug. 31 bankruptcy. Shippers furthermore had every reason this year to be concerned about Hanjin’s finances. The company had in recent years experienced bloated losses and staggeringly high debt levels, all of which was out in the open . “Since 2013, Drewry Financial Research Services has warned that Hanjin was dangerously leveraged and living on borrowed time,” Drewry said. But then again shippers earlier this year could have been just as concerned about Hyundai Merchant Marine, which is now a much safer bet . At different points in recent years they could have been justifiably concerned about deteriorating finances at other carriers as well. But none of those other carriers went belly up. What was different about Hanjin? The answer is that within the closeted, internecine world of the South Korean business elite a high-stakes drama was unfolding almost entirely behind closed doors. That suddenly the government would sever the financial lifeline for its two major container lines, which thousands of its exporters rely on, was an unprecedented act that only the most informed business risk analysis could have anticipated. A true insider might have seen this act coming, but it was invisible as far as the wider world was concerned. That said, as JOC.com has reported, some were clearly nervous. Non-vessel-operating common carriers as a group were considerably more on edge about Hanjin than beneficial cargo owners in 2016. In the first six months of the year, NVO-booked trans-Pacific import cargo shipped on Hanjin vessels dropped by 15 percent versus the prior-year period while Hanjin’s overall volume on that trade lane dropped 4.4 percent. The total market rose 3.1 percent during that period, meaning volume shipped with Hanjin by BCOs as a group was up according to data from PIERS, a sister product of JOC.com within IHS Markit. But even if a shipper had serious doubts about Hanjin, what could they have done, and what can they do going forward? The way the industry is structured today makes it extremely difficult for a shipper to protect itself against the risk of a carrier failure. Outside of taking out more insurance, the options are few. Withdrawing cargo from Hanjin would have meant withdrawing cargo from the entire CKYHE Alliance since all alliance members put cargo on each other’s ships ; that is what alliances are all about. There is no way for a shipper today to contract with a stable carrier like China Cosco Shipping Lines and demand that none of its cargo be placed on a specific alliance carrier’s vessels; the alliances don’t work like that. A shipper would have to withdraw from the entire alliance, which means significantly limiting the number of carriers they contract with and possibly the most competitive rate levels. In some trade lanes, where virtually the entire market is integrated into a single alliance, it’s impossible. And this gets to the question of how shippers can protect themselves from the next liner bankruptcy , should another one occur. It’s not clear how they can. Three east-west alliances will enter service in the first half of next year from the four in operation today. The risk of a carrier going under, not to mention the risk of a catastrophic accident or other disruption, actually demands that instead of limiting the number of carriers a shipper uses, a shipper should instead diversify. Several BCOs have told JOC.com they plan to place at least some of their east-west cargo with each of the alliances — 2M, Ocean, and THE Alliance. With cargo stranded and sales lost, you can almost hear the risk managers demanding new levels of contractual protection. But how effective will any of this be? Ideas being floated now within many BCO organizations — like applying a litmus test to carrier financials — are largely a waste of time. A carrier might fall below a threshold in a certain financial metric but taken to its logical conclusion to avoid that liner you would refrain to put cargo not only with the liner itself but with any of its alliance partners as well. Given that there aren’t that many global ocean carriers left, that might not be a wise move. Logistics teams should strongly push back against that type of thinking as risk mitigation on paper, not in the real world. The fact is the world is moving in the direction of being dependent on a relatively few number of container lines to carry an estimated 60 percent of the goods by value moved internationally by sea each year, according to the World Shipping Council. Some believe that once the current shakeout — which this year has already seen three major container lines get merged, acquired, or knocked out — is over, there will be six to 10 major carriers left. That is tiny number of providers available to carry that much global trade. One way to look at risk is to be relieved at such a development. Fewer carriers means less competition, higher rates, and more stable carriers. From a risk standpoint this is undeniably a good thing. But the price of lower risk is higher rates, which will be potentially a profound change for many shippers that have gotten used to rock-bottom rates such as those built into the current trans-Pacific contracts, where some port-to-port rates to the West Coast are reportedly below $700 per 40-foot-equivalent unit or FEU. A taste of where things may be headed can be seen in the spot rates, which, following the Hanjin collapse, spiked up 40 percent in a week and now stand at $1,743 per FEU. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @petertirschwell .

Container lines

Avoiding another Hanjin won’t be easy

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier’s purchase of FirstFleet raised its truck count substantially, but overall capacity still contracted in the first quarter, according to the Journal of Commerce’s index.The carrier’s purchase of FirstFleet raised its truck count substantially, but overall capacity still contracted in the first quarter, according to the Journal of Commerce’s index.</div>

The carrier’s purchase of FirstFleet raised its truck count substantially, but overall capacity still contracted in the first quarter, according to the Journal of Commerce’s index.The carrier’s purchase of FirstFleet raised its truck count substantially, but overall capacity still contracted in the first quarter, according to the Journal of Commerce’s index.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">An acquisition that inflated one large carrier’s truck count by 28% pushed the first quarter Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) up 6.3 percentage points to 79.8%. However, eliminating the gain from that merger, the index would have declined. That indicates capacity at large truckload carriers is still tightening after the TCI fell 20.8 percentage points over three and a half years, starting in the 2022 second quarter. Shippers are likely to feel the impact from that tightening in upcoming bids. “We expect pricing gains to continue with more meaningful improvement in the third and fourth quarters,” Werner Enterprises CEO Derek Leathers said during an April 28 earnings call. Werner hiked contract rates by mid-single digit percentages in the first quarter. Werner acquired FirstFleet, a dedicated carrier with about 2,400 trucks, in December. Excluding Werner, the TCI, a measure of actual trucks available at a group of large publicly owned carriers, would have dropped to 70.9% in the first quarter. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="1c27408c-a4a7-4bbf-84f5-4fe3e53846e0"></dynamic-object></div>”Demand has not moved a lot,” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s still muted, but [tender] rejections are way up, and spot rates are way up...That’s supply driven.” “I think everything right now is being supply-induced on the capacity side,” Frank Lonegro, CEO of truckload carrier Landstar System, told analysts during an April 28 earnings call. “If we see an incremental uptick in demand, you're going to see it on the volume side.” Shift toward dedicated trucking Werner’s $245 million acquisition of FirstFleet came just as declining truckload capacity began pushing up spot market rates in late 2025. The Journal of Commerce average shipper-paid spot rate jumped from $2.27 per mile in November to $2.46 per mile in December. The all-inclusive average rate, which represents rates charged by third-party freight brokers to shippers, including fuel surcharges, had reached $2.87 per mile by May. That’s a 34% year-over-year increase from an average rate of $2.14 per mile in April 2025. FirstFleet “created a significant amount [of] more density across certain geographies in our network,” that created “a multiplier effect” on Werner’s dedicated business, Leathers said on his company’s earnings call. At the same time, Werner has been restructuring its traditional one-way truckload business, changing its freight mix and shrinking its one-way truck fleet by 11% year over year. In the first quarter, revenue per one-way truck rose 9.6%, Werner said. Werner exemplifies a shift by large carriers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/large-us-truckload-carriers-shifting-assets-to-expand-dedicated-services-5935831">toward dedicated trucking</a>, with its higher profit margin, and away from more volatile one-way truckload service. As that shift continues, shippers will rely increasingly on mid-sized and smaller carriers to move one-way shipments. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

An acquisition that inflated one large carrier’s truck count by 28% pushed the first quarter Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) up 6.3 percentage points to 79.8%. However, eliminating the gain from that merger, the index would have declined. That indicates capacity at large truckload carriers is still tightening after the TCI fell 20.8 percentage points over three and a half years, starting in the 2022 second quarter. Shippers are likely to feel the impact from that tightening in upcoming bids. “We expect pricing gains to continue with more meaningful improvement in the third and fourth quarters,” Werner Enterprises CEO Derek Leathers said during an April 28 earnings call. Werner hiked contract rates by mid-single digit percentages in the first quarter. Werner acquired FirstFleet, a dedicated carrier with about 2,400 trucks, in December. Excluding Werner, the TCI, a measure of actual trucks available at a group of large publicly owned carriers, would have dropped to 70.9% in the first quarter. ”Demand has not moved a lot,” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s still muted, but [tender] rejections are way up, and spot rates are way up...That’s supply driven.” “I think everything right now is being supply-induced on the capacity side,” Frank Lonegro, CEO of truckload carrier Landstar System, told analysts during an April 28 earnings call. “If we see an incremental uptick in demand, you're going to see it on the volume side.” Shift toward dedicated trucking Werner’s $245 million acquisition of FirstFleet came just as declining truckload capacity began pushing up spot market rates in late 2025. The Journal of Commerce average shipper-paid spot rate jumped from $2.27 per mile in November to $2.46 per mile in December. The all-inclusive average rate, which represents rates charged by third-party freight brokers to shippers, including fuel surcharges, had reached $2.87 per mile by May. That’s a 34% year-over-year increase from an average rate of $2.14 per mile in April 2025. FirstFleet “created a significant amount [of] more density across certain geographies in our network,” that created “a multiplier effect” on Werner’s dedicated business, Leathers said on his company’s earnings call. At the same time, Werner has been restructuring its traditional one-way truckload business, changing its freight mix and shrinking its one-way truck fleet by 11% year over year. In the first quarter, revenue per one-way truck rose 9.6%, Werner said. Werner exemplifies a shift by large carriers toward dedicated trucking , with its higher profit margin, and away from more volatile one-way truckload service. As that shift continues, shippers will rely increasingly on mid-sized and smaller carriers to move one-way shipments. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Truck brokers

Surface

Werner acquisition boosts Truckload Capacity Index despite low demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The software vendor said shippers can move away from having intermediaries manage bookings by automating the process and tying it to performance data that FourKites holds. </div>

The software vendor said shippers can move away from having intermediaries manage bookings by automating the process and tying it to performance data that FourKites holds.

<div class="phx-topic">Software vendor FourKites has launched a tool aimed at helping shippers wean themselves off a historical reliance on third-party logistics providers to execute ocean freight bookings with container lines. The new tool, called Booking Connect for Ocean, automates the booking request, confirmation and shipment creation processes associated with international container moves. “The traditional ocean booking process, even for the largest and most sophisticated shippers, is highly fragmented,” Priya Rajagopalan, president of product, technology and operations at FourKites, told the Journal of Commerce. “Carrier-forwarder coordination loops run through email and phone over different continents. It’s hard to look at and say where there are opportunities for improvement. Structurally, this feel like it’s a valuable process to solve.” Rajagopalan said the new tool, unveiled this week, allows shippers to base booking decisions on ocean carrier performance, reliability and transshipment data that FourKites has accumulated for more than a decade as a transportation visibility provider. The company in early 2025 shifted its product focus to agentic solutions that comprise what it calls an artificial intelligence (AI)-led control tower solution. “This is not intended to be a better [user interface] for rate shopping,” Rajagopalan said. “It’s trying to deliver an outcome. So it’s not just recommendations, but you can enforce your routing guide on the fly using natural language.” <h3>‘Rational step forward’ </h3>The tool allows a shipper to prompt the booking process through a digital agent, including specifying rules or thresholds, such as limiting the number of containers on a specific sailing, or divvying up volume to different carriers based on a shipper’s allocation strategy. Booking Connect provides shippers with recommendations along four dimensions: cost, transit time, an optimized tradeoff between cost and transit time, and historical performance factors such as port congestion or schedule reliability. “The shipper can choose which one is most important to them,” Rajagopalan said. She described the development of the booking tool as a “rational step forward” in FourKites’ product development because confirmed ocean bookings need to be based on data that is currently scattered across systems or held predominantly by logistics intermediaries. It can also be more automated than it has historically been, she said. “Rejected bookings surface alternatives immediately and can re-book within pre-configured rules,” FourKites said in a statement about the product launch. “Tracking begins automatically upon confirmation, with milestone visibility from port of loading through final delivery.” While the tool is ideally used by a shipper, Rajagopalan said shippers who still prefer to outsource booking management to their forwarders could enable the use of Booking Connect. FourKites has some 3PL customers among its largely shipper-focused client base. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Software vendor FourKites has launched a tool aimed at helping shippers wean themselves off a historical reliance on third-party logistics providers to execute ocean freight bookings with container lines. The new tool, called Booking Connect for Ocean, automates the booking request, confirmation and shipment creation processes associated with international container moves. “The traditional ocean booking process, even for the largest and most sophisticated shippers, is highly fragmented,” Priya Rajagopalan, president of product, technology and operations at FourKites, told the Journal of Commerce. “Carrier-forwarder coordination loops run through email and phone over different continents. It’s hard to look at and say where there are opportunities for improvement. Structurally, this feel like it’s a valuable process to solve.” Rajagopalan said the new tool, unveiled this week, allows shippers to base booking decisions on ocean carrier performance, reliability and transshipment data that FourKites has accumulated for more than a decade as a transportation visibility provider. The company in early 2025 shifted its product focus to agentic solutions that comprise what it calls an artificial intelligence (AI)-led control tower solution. “This is not intended to be a better [user interface] for rate shopping,” Rajagopalan said. “It’s trying to deliver an outcome. So it’s not just recommendations, but you can enforce your routing guide on the fly using natural language.” ‘Rational step forward’ The tool allows a shipper to prompt the booking process through a digital agent, including specifying rules or thresholds, such as limiting the number of containers on a specific sailing, or divvying up volume to different carriers based on a shipper’s allocation strategy. Booking Connect provides shippers with recommendations along four dimensions: cost, transit time, an optimized tradeoff between cost and transit time, and historical performance factors such as port congestion or schedule reliability. “The shipper can choose which one is most important to them,” Rajagopalan said. She described the development of the booking tool as a “rational step forward” in FourKites’ product development because confirmed ocean bookings need to be based on data that is currently scattered across systems or held predominantly by logistics intermediaries. It can also be more automated than it has historically been, she said. “Rejected bookings surface alternatives immediately and can re-book within pre-configured rules,” FourKites said in a statement about the product launch. “Tracking begins automatically upon confirmation, with milestone visibility from port of loading through final delivery.” While the tool is ideally used by a shipper, Rajagopalan said shippers who still prefer to outsource booking management to their forwarders could enable the use of Booking Connect. FourKites has some 3PL customers among its largely shipper-focused client base. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Logistics Technology News

Container Shipping News

Supply chain

FourKites takes aim at automating ocean bookings for shippers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A Journal of Commerce review found several instances where the promotional trucking awards appear to reflect service performance, rather than a strong safety culture or the skill of the drivers behind the wheel.</div>

A Journal of Commerce review found several instances where the promotional trucking awards appear to reflect service performance, rather than a strong safety culture or the skill of the drivers behind the wheel.

<div class="phx-topic">Shippers often assume the honors bestowed by freight brokers on the truck carriers they use mean the carriers are doing things the right way, including — and perhaps most importantly — operating safely on US highways. But a Journal of Commerce review found several instances where that assumption is not necessarily accurate. Indeed, the awards themselves — which are essentially self-congratulatory promotional marketing for the brokers and carriers involved — appear to reflect service performance, rather than a strong safety culture or the skill of the drivers behind the wheel. In a recent example that received a lot of publicity for all the wrong reasons, broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide gave a “Carrier of the Year” award to SuperEgo Holding last September, an honor the broker said recognizes those that “exemplify the best in the industry.” But SuperEgo later became the subject of <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-dangerous-trucking-schemes-putting-americans-at-risk-60-minutes-transcript/">a CBS 60 Minutes investigation</a> that found the carrier and related entities were tied to 15,000 safety violations and 500 accidents over two years. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is also investigating SuperEgo over allegations it operated as a “chameleon” carrier, meaning a trucking company that shuts down and rebrands itself under a new name to evade federal safety enforcement, fines, insurance scrutiny or poor safety records while operating with the same management. But SuperEgo was not the only “award-winning” carrier with a high-risk profile. A review by the Journal of Commerce found that C.H. Robinson, Echo Global Logistics and Uber Freight have honored other carriers with serious safety or driver qualification issues on their records. While none of the carriers recognized were officially deemed “unsafe” by federal regulators, their records highlight a gray area: what shippers believe a “Carrier of the Year” award actually represents. Other large US brokers appear not to publicly announce their carrier honors, if they even have them at all. <h3>Gray area on carrier vetting </h3>Shippers rely on brokers to thoroughly vet the carriers handling their freight, but what that vetting entails can be nebulous. For the brokers that announce awards, they are typically made to recognize operational performance metrics such as accepting tenders, on-time delivery, providing tracking visibility, and offering competitive pricing. For shippers, however, the award designation may imply that the carrier is operating legally, safely, and with qualified drivers behind the wheel. Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, said shippers often assume safety is a consideration when carriers are selected to haul loads. “The shippers I talk to, they just make the assumption you’re doing everything you can around safety,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “When a driver exhibits bad behavior or unsafe behavior, you are at a higher risk for having an accident, even a serious accident.” Miller said most “Carrier of the Year”-type awards are not tied to safety, but rather how much capacity a carrier provides and at what rates, even though shippers may view the awards as broader endorsements of safe, low-risk carriers. Knight-Swift <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/knight-swift-making-safety-related-cuts-to-brokerage-fleet-6210440">culled 30% of third-party carriers</a> out of its logistics division in the first quarter, citing increased vetting to ensure higher safety standards and in a bid to reduce the likelihood of cargo theft. But the brokerage industry as a whole, whether it’s handing out awards or not, passes no judgment on whether a carrier is fit to operate. For that, it relies on FMSCA, according to Chris Burroughs, president of the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA). The TIA represents 1,800 third-party logistics companies in North America. “If the FMCSA can’t decipher [who is safe to operate], how is the general public supposed to decipher it?” Burroughs told the Journal of Commerce. <h3>Does safety scoring predict accident risk? </h3>Through its Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program, the FMCSA measures trucking companies on six criteria: unsafe driving, crash indicators, hours-of-service compliance, vehicle maintenance, controlled substances or alcohol, and driver fitness. The criteria are published in the online Safety Measurement System (SMS). Crash indicators measure patterns of high crash involvement, such as frequency and severity, according to FMCSA. The SMS data is used by FMCSA to prioritize carrier “interventions,” but Burroughs argues the scores are not reliable enough for brokers to make decisions on carriers. “Brokers may review publicly available data as part of their overall due diligence, but that data is incomplete, can be misleading, and cannot be used to make definitive safety determinations,” he said. The CSA scoring data does not constitute a safety rating, Burroughs pointed out. The FMCSA only assigns a safety rating of “satisfactory,” “conditional,” or “unsatisfactory” after an on-site review of a company’s safety procedures and regulatory compliance. Still, more than 90% of existing trucking companies in the US have not been rated by the FMCSA, according to the agency, and some companies have safety ratings that were assigned years or even decades ago. The FMCSA does not have the staff or resources to visit, inspect, and provide a safety rating for all motor carriers in the US. A 2017 review by the National Academy of Sciences found that the CSA safety scoring system is “structured in a reasonable way” and “defensible” for identifying higher-risk carriers. But the authors also questioned how precisely those scores reflect crash risk. The federal government has focused intensely on highway safety through its SAFE ROADS initiative, including <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/house-committee-advances-bill-targeting-non-domiciled-commercial-drivers-licenses-6188801">the high-profile crackdowns</a> on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and English Language Proficiency (ELP) requirements. <h3>‘Winners’ with higher-risk profiles </h3>Despite the studies on CSA scores, some indicators have a clear nexus with highway safety. A carrier with repeated severe violations, such as operating a vehicle with defective brakes or excessive speeding, presents a higher risk of getting into an accident. The Journal of Commerce found several carriers that were given awards by brokers despite having enough serious violations to trigger FMCSA intervention or be officially deemed “high risk.” MEB Express, which won a C.H. Robinson “Carrier of the Year” award alongside SuperEgo, had eight violations for traveling at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit in the last two years, two violations for inattentive or distracted driving, and two violations for not having a proper CDL or medical certificate, according to the FMCSA. Another C.H. Robinson “Carrier of the Year” winner for 2025, Garesp Transportation, received six violations for either making “a false report in connection with a duty status” or “failing to have a record of duty status,” the FMCSA said. Both revolve around data from electronic-logging devices (ELDs), which are required for interstate commerce to “directly combat the primary cause of fatigue-related accidents,” according to the agency. Both are small carriers: MEB owns 80 trucks; Garesp owns 30. C.H. Robinson gives several “Carrier of the Year” awards, depending on the fleet size of the trucking company. Since last September when the awards were announced, both MEB and Garesp have continued to rack up violations. Five MEB Express drivers were taken out of service for failing an ELP exam, according to the FMCSA, while three Garesp drivers were taken off the road for not possessing a valid CDL or violating restrictions placed on their CDLs. Contacted by the Journal of Commerce about its award distribution and the companies that received FMCSA violations, C.H. Robinson noted that there were 24 different winners last September, including owner-operators, small carriers, large carriers, and holding companies with affiliated carriers such as SuperEgo. The broker also said all winners meet the standards set by the FMCSA to legally operate. “The awards are chosen by an internal committee and are based on exceptional service to our customers, such as reliable tracking updates, on-time performance and delivering on customers’ unique requirements,” C.H. Robinson wrote in a statement. But it also acknowledged it is considering changes in determining how carriers are chosen for recognition, saying, “As a part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we are reviewing our criteria for future carrier awards.” <h3>C.H. Robinson not alone </h3>Other brokers have also given promotional awards to carriers with high-risk profiles. Uber Freight named CloudTrucks a “Carrier of the Year” last month, even though federal regulators in February flagged the carrier’s driver fitness record, noting multiple out-of-service violations tied to driver qualifications. The FMCSA officially identified the carrier as “high-risk” in March 2025. “CloudTrucks’ on-road safety data, including driver fitness violations, indicate ongoing safety management concerns,” the FMCSA wrote in February. “CloudTrucks was cited for 27 driver fitness violations in the past two years during inspections, 20 of which were out-of-service violations." Uber Freight discloses the criteria for its “Carrier of the Year” award on its website; safety was not among them. Uber did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce. In 2024, Echo Global Logistics awarded a “Carrier of the Quarter” award to Fortune Transport, despite Fortune triggering federal intervention thresholds for hours-of-service compliance and crash indicators. In a third category — vehicle maintenance — the carrier was only 0.9 percentage point below a formal FMCSA intervention, according to a carrier profile obtained by the Journal of Commerce through a third-party platform. An FMCSA intervention includes warning letters, increased roadside inspections, and possible on-site investigations. Fortune Transport owns 13 trucks. “Echo’s ‘Carrier of the Quarter’ awards are based on operational performance within our network, including factors such as on-time delivery, low cancellations, consistent tracking, and overall service,” the company said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce when asked about the award to Fortune. “Echo maintains a comprehensive carrier onboarding process and operates in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requirements and all applicable laws and regulations.” The broader issue for shippers remains: Operational excellence and highway safety are not always the same thing. While a “Carrier of the Year” award may recognize service performance, unless the criteria clearly state otherwise, it should not be interpreted as a guarantee that every load is being hauled by safe, low-risk and legally qualified drivers. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.       Senior Editor William B. Cassidy and Special Correspondent Dan Ronan contributed to this report. </div>

Shippers often assume the honors bestowed by freight brokers on the truck carriers they use mean the carriers are doing things the right way, including — and perhaps most importantly — operating safely on US highways. But a Journal of Commerce review found several instances where that assumption is not necessarily accurate. Indeed, the awards themselves — which are essentially self-congratulatory promotional marketing for the brokers and carriers involved — appear to reflect service performance, rather than a strong safety culture or the skill of the drivers behind the wheel. In a recent example that received a lot of publicity for all the wrong reasons, broker C.H. Robinson Worldwide gave a “Carrier of the Year” award to SuperEgo Holding last September, an honor the broker said recognizes those that “exemplify the best in the industry.” But SuperEgo later became the subject of a CBS 60 Minutes investigation that found the carrier and related entities were tied to 15,000 safety violations and 500 accidents over two years. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is also investigating SuperEgo over allegations it operated as a “chameleon” carrier, meaning a trucking company that shuts down and rebrands itself under a new name to evade federal safety enforcement, fines, insurance scrutiny or poor safety records while operating with the same management. But SuperEgo was not the only “award-winning” carrier with a high-risk profile. A review by the Journal of Commerce found that C.H. Robinson, Echo Global Logistics and Uber Freight have honored other carriers with serious safety or driver qualification issues on their records. While none of the carriers recognized were officially deemed “unsafe” by federal regulators, their records highlight a gray area: what shippers believe a “Carrier of the Year” award actually represents. Other large US brokers appear not to publicly announce their carrier honors, if they even have them at all. Gray area on carrier vetting Shippers rely on brokers to thoroughly vet the carriers handling their freight, but what that vetting entails can be nebulous. For the brokers that announce awards, they are typically made to recognize operational performance metrics such as accepting tenders, on-time delivery, providing tracking visibility, and offering competitive pricing. For shippers, however, the award designation may imply that the carrier is operating legally, safely, and with qualified drivers behind the wheel. Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, said shippers often assume safety is a consideration when carriers are selected to haul loads. “The shippers I talk to, they just make the assumption you’re doing everything you can around safety,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “When a driver exhibits bad behavior or unsafe behavior, you are at a higher risk for having an accident, even a serious accident.” Miller said most “Carrier of the Year”-type awards are not tied to safety, but rather how much capacity a carrier provides and at what rates, even though shippers may view the awards as broader endorsements of safe, low-risk carriers. Knight-Swift culled 30% of third-party carriers out of its logistics division in the first quarter, citing increased vetting to ensure higher safety standards and in a bid to reduce the likelihood of cargo theft. But the brokerage industry as a whole, whether it’s handing out awards or not, passes no judgment on whether a carrier is fit to operate. For that, it relies on FMSCA, according to Chris Burroughs, president of the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA). The TIA represents 1,800 third-party logistics companies in North America. “If the FMCSA can’t decipher [who is safe to operate], how is the general public supposed to decipher it?” Burroughs told the Journal of Commerce. Does safety scoring predict accident risk? Through its Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) program, the FMCSA measures trucking companies on six criteria: unsafe driving, crash indicators, hours-of-service compliance, vehicle maintenance, controlled substances or alcohol, and driver fitness. The criteria are published in the online Safety Measurement System (SMS). Crash indicators measure patterns of high crash involvement, such as frequency and severity, according to FMCSA. The SMS data is used by FMCSA to prioritize carrier “interventions,” but Burroughs argues the scores are not reliable enough for brokers to make decisions on carriers. “Brokers may review publicly available data as part of their overall due diligence, but that data is incomplete, can be misleading, and cannot be used to make definitive safety determinations,” he said. The CSA scoring data does not constitute a safety rating, Burroughs pointed out. The FMCSA only assigns a safety rating of “satisfactory,” “conditional,” or “unsatisfactory” after an on-site review of a company’s safety procedures and regulatory compliance. Still, more than 90% of existing trucking companies in the US have not been rated by the FMCSA, according to the agency, and some companies have safety ratings that were assigned years or even decades ago. The FMCSA does not have the staff or resources to visit, inspect, and provide a safety rating for all motor carriers in the US. A 2017 review by the National Academy of Sciences found that the CSA safety scoring system is “structured in a reasonable way” and “defensible” for identifying higher-risk carriers. But the authors also questioned how precisely those scores reflect crash risk. The federal government has focused intensely on highway safety through its SAFE ROADS initiative, including the high-profile crackdowns on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and English Language Proficiency (ELP) requirements. ‘Winners’ with higher-risk profiles Despite the studies on CSA scores, some indicators have a clear nexus with highway safety. A carrier with repeated severe violations, such as operating a vehicle with defective brakes or excessive speeding, presents a higher risk of getting into an accident. The Journal of Commerce found several carriers that were given awards by brokers despite having enough serious violations to trigger FMCSA intervention or be officially deemed “high risk.” MEB Express, which won a C.H. Robinson “Carrier of the Year” award alongside SuperEgo, had eight violations for traveling at least 10 miles per hour over the speed limit in the last two years, two violations for inattentive or distracted driving, and two violations for not having a proper CDL or medical certificate, according to the FMCSA. Another C.H. Robinson “Carrier of the Year” winner for 2025, Garesp Transportation, received six violations for either making “a false report in connection with a duty status” or “failing to have a record of duty status,” the FMCSA said. Both revolve around data from electronic-logging devices (ELDs), which are required for interstate commerce to “directly combat the primary cause of fatigue-related accidents,” according to the agency. Both are small carriers: MEB owns 80 trucks; Garesp owns 30. C.H. Robinson gives several “Carrier of the Year” awards, depending on the fleet size of the trucking company. Since last September when the awards were announced, both MEB and Garesp have continued to rack up violations. Five MEB Express drivers were taken out of service for failing an ELP exam, according to the FMCSA, while three Garesp drivers were taken off the road for not possessing a valid CDL or violating restrictions placed on their CDLs. Contacted by the Journal of Commerce about its award distribution and the companies that received FMCSA violations, C.H. Robinson noted that there were 24 different winners last September, including owner-operators, small carriers, large carriers, and holding companies with affiliated carriers such as SuperEgo. The broker also said all winners meet the standards set by the FMCSA to legally operate. “The awards are chosen by an internal committee and are based on exceptional service to our customers, such as reliable tracking updates, on-time performance and delivering on customers’ unique requirements,” C.H. Robinson wrote in a statement. But it also acknowledged it is considering changes in determining how carriers are chosen for recognition, saying, “As a part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we are reviewing our criteria for future carrier awards.” C.H. Robinson not alone Other brokers have also given promotional awards to carriers with high-risk profiles. Uber Freight named CloudTrucks a “Carrier of the Year” last month, even though federal regulators in February flagged the carrier’s driver fitness record, noting multiple out-of-service violations tied to driver qualifications. The FMCSA officially identified the carrier as “high-risk” in March 2025. “CloudTrucks’ on-road safety data, including driver fitness violations, indicate ongoing safety management concerns,” the FMCSA wrote in February. “CloudTrucks was cited for 27 driver fitness violations in the past two years during inspections, 20 of which were out-of-service violations." Uber Freight discloses the criteria for its “Carrier of the Year” award on its website; safety was not among them. Uber did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the Journal of Commerce. In 2024, Echo Global Logistics awarded a “Carrier of the Quarter” award to Fortune Transport, despite Fortune triggering federal intervention thresholds for hours-of-service compliance and crash indicators. In a third category — vehicle maintenance — the carrier was only 0.9 percentage point below a formal FMCSA intervention, according to a carrier profile obtained by the Journal of Commerce through a third-party platform. An FMCSA intervention includes warning letters, increased roadside inspections, and possible on-site investigations. Fortune Transport owns 13 trucks. “Echo’s ‘Carrier of the Quarter’ awards are based on operational performance within our network, including factors such as on-time delivery, low cancellations, consistent tracking, and overall service,” the company said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce when asked about the award to Fortune. “Echo maintains a comprehensive carrier onboarding process and operates in compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration requirements and all applicable laws and regulations.” The broader issue for shippers remains: Operational excellence and highway safety are not always the same thing. While a “Carrier of the Year” award may recognize service performance, unless the criteria clearly state otherwise, it should not be interpreted as a guarantee that every load is being hauled by safe, low-risk and legally qualified drivers. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .       Senior Editor William B. Cassidy and Special Correspondent Dan Ronan contributed to this report.

Safety assumptions appear misguided in ‘carrier of the year’ honors

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cargo shippers and forwarders have found themselves taking on more of the burden for inland transport, relying on barges and trucks to fill in the gaps and even expanding their own fleets of heavy-duty rail cars.</div>

Cargo shippers and forwarders have found themselves taking on more of the burden for inland transport, relying on barges and trucks to fill in the gaps and even expanding their own fleets of heavy-duty rail cars.

<div class="phx-topic">An aging fleet, a declining number of cars, and a high volume of energy-related project cargo is pushing North American rail capacity to its limits, resulting in cost increases and scheduling delays for project cargo moves. Cargo shippers and forwarders have found themselves taking on more of the burden for inland transport, relying on barges and trucks to fill in the gaps and even expanding their own fleets of heavy-duty rail cars. The North American freight car fleet contracted by 24,149 cars between 2019 and 2025 to 1.66 million, a 1% decline, according to data from the Umler Index by researcher Railinc Corp., which tracks the rail equipment fleet. Mark Lockwood, vice president of key accounts and corporate counsel for the North American arm of international project cargo freight forwarder Fracht Group, told the Journal of Commerce that rail car maintenance and availability has been on the decline since the early 2000s, with many cars either approaching the end of their 50-year lifespan or becoming obsolete. Now with the data center boom and grid upgrades resulting in a surge of power generation and energy infrastructure projects, the rapidly increasing demand for these cargoes has placed a considerable strain on rail capacity at a time when project developers have made speed to market the order of the day. “The railroad service has been very poor lately on moving this type of cargo,” Lockwood said. “The transit times have increased. So, I see a perfect storm coming up of ships arriving that will not have rail cars [to move cargo inland].” The rail capacity shortage presents challenges specifically for heavy cargo pieces that weigh over 600,000 pounds, Lockwood said. “The car supply is very low for that. Sixteen axles and above are in very tight supply,” he said. <h3>Shipments held up at ports </h3>Carsten Wendt, head of sales for high and heavy and breakbulk at ocean carrier Wallenius Wilhelmsen, said rail-bound cargo shipments have not been getting picked up on time from US ports. That has been the case specifically for heavy-lift and oversized power generation project cargo such as transformers, gas turbines and steam generators that require transport by rail after being discharged at ports. “That is a big problem for us,” Wendt said. “And we’ve been seeing this more in the last few weeks and months.” Mark Davenport, logistics provider and rail specialist for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Siemens Energy, told the Journal of Commerce the lead time for rail cars can take months, whereas previously it used to take weeks. “The AI data centers just absolutely changed everyone’s perspectives very quickly,” he said. “I think it caught a lot of people off guard just how quickly the demand for electricity is increasing.” Davenport said <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-onshore-wind-halt-deals-latest-blow-for-project-cargo-6215810">the slowdown of the US wind power market</a>, which relies on a high volume of rail cars to move turbines and other project cargo, has freed up some rail capacity to accommodate fossil fuel-based energy project equipment — at least for now. “But if that were to pick up, that could make this entire situation even more challenging,” he said. <h3>Rail car scarcity drives delays </h3>When it comes to transporting power generation project cargo and other heavy and oversized pieces, Davenport said rail is the “go-to” mode of transportation for any equipment that’s too big to truck. But if there’s no rail car available when a vessel carrying the cargo arrives at the port, then the equipment needs to be received onto a trailer and put in storage. Then when a rail car does become available, the equipment needs to be moved again, triggering additional costs and schedule delays. “If you expected it to arrive and land straight to a rail car, and now you’re waiting two weeks for a rail car to get back, you’re going to be under the gun to make deliveries on time,” Davenport said. For carriers such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen, their scope of work when transporting shipments typically ends once they discharge cargo at the port. From there, the cargo gets handed off to a receiver and moved to a rail car for the next leg of transport. But lately, Wendt said those heavy cargoes have been staying put at the pier — sitting idly on the carrier’s specialized cargo-handling equipment and leaving the carrier unable to move the equipment to the next port. That means the shipper either has to pay demurrage fees to keep the cargo on the carrier’s equipment or pay double handling fees to move the cargo elsewhere. Even more challenging, Wendt said, is that because these are specialized heavy-lift trailers, there is a limited number of them available for other shipments. “And if you keep them occupied for too long in the US, then we are lacking them at ports in Asia and Europe,” he said. <h3>In-house fleets expand </h3>Recognizing the increasing demand for moving project cargo freight by rail, Fracht has been taking steps for over a decade to expand its rail car fleet through acquisitions. Lockwood said Fracht now owns nearly 50 rail cars — including mostly eight- and 12-axle cars and one 18-axle car — sized to move breakbulk and project cargo, and the company plans to acquire or possibly manufacture additional cars to further grow its fleet. Although Fracht still must rely on outside rail car providers, Lockwood said the investment has given the company a competitive advantage by having ready access to its own cars for key moves and customers. “We can have more control and management of our shipments, which is important,” he said. Siemens Energy has also been working to make the most of its rail car fleet by extending the life of older cars it owns and has been using for factory storage, while leasing others. “We’re really trying to ramp up to be ready for what’s coming,” Davenport said. He said changing perspectives in supply chain management could push OEMs such as Siemens to acquire their own rail cars, versus leasing them as they had done in the past. In addition to rail, barge and heavy-haul transport are positioned to become more prominent modes of overland transport. “Previously, rail moves were rail moves, and truck and barge moves were truck and barge moves,” Davenport said. “But if the rail car supply is not there, other players in the industry will jump in and capture that part of the market.” Lockwood said he expects more companies will realize they need to invest in their own rail cars, but they will have to navigate challenges such as long lead times and higher steel costs because of US tariffs — and that’s if they are willing to put forth the capital for an asset with a 50-year lifespan. “Will it happen? We’re in a market society, so I’m sure it will,” he said. “How fast will it happen? Time to market — that’s the critical part.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

An aging fleet, a declining number of cars, and a high volume of energy-related project cargo is pushing North American rail capacity to its limits, resulting in cost increases and scheduling delays for project cargo moves. Cargo shippers and forwarders have found themselves taking on more of the burden for inland transport, relying on barges and trucks to fill in the gaps and even expanding their own fleets of heavy-duty rail cars. The North American freight car fleet contracted by 24,149 cars between 2019 and 2025 to 1.66 million, a 1% decline, according to data from the Umler Index by researcher Railinc Corp., which tracks the rail equipment fleet. Mark Lockwood, vice president of key accounts and corporate counsel for the North American arm of international project cargo freight forwarder Fracht Group, told the Journal of Commerce that rail car maintenance and availability has been on the decline since the early 2000s, with many cars either approaching the end of their 50-year lifespan or becoming obsolete. Now with the data center boom and grid upgrades resulting in a surge of power generation and energy infrastructure projects, the rapidly increasing demand for these cargoes has placed a considerable strain on rail capacity at a time when project developers have made speed to market the order of the day. “The railroad service has been very poor lately on moving this type of cargo,” Lockwood said. “The transit times have increased. So, I see a perfect storm coming up of ships arriving that will not have rail cars [to move cargo inland].” The rail capacity shortage presents challenges specifically for heavy cargo pieces that weigh over 600,000 pounds, Lockwood said. “The car supply is very low for that. Sixteen axles and above are in very tight supply,” he said. Shipments held up at ports Carsten Wendt, head of sales for high and heavy and breakbulk at ocean carrier Wallenius Wilhelmsen, said rail-bound cargo shipments have not been getting picked up on time from US ports. That has been the case specifically for heavy-lift and oversized power generation project cargo such as transformers, gas turbines and steam generators that require transport by rail after being discharged at ports. “That is a big problem for us,” Wendt said. “And we’ve been seeing this more in the last few weeks and months.” Mark Davenport, logistics provider and rail specialist for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) Siemens Energy, told the Journal of Commerce the lead time for rail cars can take months, whereas previously it used to take weeks. “The AI data centers just absolutely changed everyone’s perspectives very quickly,” he said. “I think it caught a lot of people off guard just how quickly the demand for electricity is increasing.” Davenport said the slowdown of the US wind power market , which relies on a high volume of rail cars to move turbines and other project cargo, has freed up some rail capacity to accommodate fossil fuel-based energy project equipment — at least for now. “But if that were to pick up, that could make this entire situation even more challenging,” he said. Rail car scarcity drives delays When it comes to transporting power generation project cargo and other heavy and oversized pieces, Davenport said rail is the “go-to” mode of transportation for any equipment that’s too big to truck. But if there’s no rail car available when a vessel carrying the cargo arrives at the port, then the equipment needs to be received onto a trailer and put in storage. Then when a rail car does become available, the equipment needs to be moved again, triggering additional costs and schedule delays. “If you expected it to arrive and land straight to a rail car, and now you’re waiting two weeks for a rail car to get back, you’re going to be under the gun to make deliveries on time,” Davenport said. For carriers such as Wallenius Wilhelmsen, their scope of work when transporting shipments typically ends once they discharge cargo at the port. From there, the cargo gets handed off to a receiver and moved to a rail car for the next leg of transport. But lately, Wendt said those heavy cargoes have been staying put at the pier — sitting idly on the carrier’s specialized cargo-handling equipment and leaving the carrier unable to move the equipment to the next port. That means the shipper either has to pay demurrage fees to keep the cargo on the carrier’s equipment or pay double handling fees to move the cargo elsewhere. Even more challenging, Wendt said, is that because these are specialized heavy-lift trailers, there is a limited number of them available for other shipments. “And if you keep them occupied for too long in the US, then we are lacking them at ports in Asia and Europe,” he said. In-house fleets expand Recognizing the increasing demand for moving project cargo freight by rail, Fracht has been taking steps for over a decade to expand its rail car fleet through acquisitions. Lockwood said Fracht now owns nearly 50 rail cars — including mostly eight- and 12-axle cars and one 18-axle car — sized to move breakbulk and project cargo, and the company plans to acquire or possibly manufacture additional cars to further grow its fleet. Although Fracht still must rely on outside rail car providers, Lockwood said the investment has given the company a competitive advantage by having ready access to its own cars for key moves and customers. “We can have more control and management of our shipments, which is important,” he said. Siemens Energy has also been working to make the most of its rail car fleet by extending the life of older cars it owns and has been using for factory storage, while leasing others. “We’re really trying to ramp up to be ready for what’s coming,” Davenport said. He said changing perspectives in supply chain management could push OEMs such as Siemens to acquire their own rail cars, versus leasing them as they had done in the past. In addition to rail, barge and heavy-haul transport are positioned to become more prominent modes of overland transport. “Previously, rail moves were rail moves, and truck and barge moves were truck and barge moves,” Davenport said. “But if the rail car supply is not there, other players in the industry will jump in and capture that part of the market.” Lockwood said he expects more companies will realize they need to invest in their own rail cars, but they will have to navigate challenges such as long lead times and higher steel costs because of US tariffs — and that’s if they are willing to put forth the capital for an asset with a 50-year lifespan. “Will it happen? We’re in a market society, so I’m sure it will,” he said. “How fast will it happen? Time to market — that’s the critical part.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Rail News

Project cargo

Breakbulk ports

North-American rail

Breakbulk News

Growth in energy-linked project cargo exacerbates US rail car shortage

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says. </div>

But the carrier’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the industry manages its fast-growing order book, Vincent Clerc says.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key first-quarter financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2025. <h3>‘Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 </h3>Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs,” he said. “The increased costs that will flow through the [profit and loss] in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. “This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6% but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. <h3>Overcapacity hangs over industry </h3>Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="65404dbe-8b60-43eb-9f13-4179bde44e2b"></dynamic-object></div>Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. “Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route [around southern Africa].” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk’s monthly bunker fuel bill has doubled to $500 million since the war in the Middle East began — and those costs are being recovered “in full” from the carrier’s customers via surcharges and revised bunker formulas, CEO Vincent Clerc said Thursday. But Maersk’s ability to continue that cost recovery will depend on the long-term impact of high energy prices on consumer demand and how the container shipping industry manages growing excess capacity, Clerc told analysts during the carrier’s first-quarter earnings call. “Our concern is a softening of the demand environment and insufficient capacity management across the industry, which will lead to an erosion of the recovery of costs on the short-term market, which could, depending on how much it will erode, quickly get you into a not-so-pleasant place in the second half of the year,” he said. Maersk handled 3.2 million FEUs in the first quarter as volume increased 9% year over year. Average load rates were down 14% at $2,081 per FEU, but higher sequentially compared with the fourth quarter of 2025. Despite the robust volume across Maersk’s ocean, logistics and terminals segments, the group’s key first-quarter financial metrics were negative due to an oversupplied market that pushed rates lower. Revenue was down 2.6% year over year at $13 billion; earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization fell 33% to $1.8 billion; and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) of $340 million was down 73%. First-quarter net profit of $100 million was down sharply from the $1.2 billion recorded in the first quarter of 2025. ‘Limited’ financial hit from war in Q1 Maersk has so far been able to manage the cost impact of the energy shock, but Clerc told analysts that the bunker fuel price increase was unprecedented in terms of size, the speed at which it unfolded, and the dislocations it created in the market. “There is limited financial impact from the conflict in the first quarter, given the accounting effects of delayed recognitions of both revenue and costs,” he said. “The increased costs that will flow through the [profit and loss] in Q2 and beyond are being recovered through higher spot rates and the successful implementation of commercial levers with our contracted customers, most notably surcharges and bunker formulas. “This is about $500 million of extra cost per month, which we are recovering in full today, even in an oversupplied market overall, despite heavy disruptions to energy markets,” Clerc added. Bunker prices in the first quarter were actually down 16% year over year, with the sharply higher prices seen in March after the war began not enough to overwhelm the far lower costs of January and February. Operating costs were up 0.6% but offset by the strong volume growth and unit cost that fell 7.1% in the first quarter. Maersk’s Logistics and Services segment reported revenue up 8.7% year over year at $3.8 billion, although the EBIT margin of 4.6% remained short of the 6% target. In the terminals segment, revenue increased 6.7% year over year to $1.3 billion, driven by higher revenue per move and greater volume, especially in North America. Volume handled by the terminals rose 4% to 3.4 million FEUs. Overcapacity hangs over industry Maersk left its financial forecast for the year unchanged, but the wide range between upper and lower EBIT expectation — minus $1.5 billion to $1 billion — underlined the extreme uncertainty the carrier is seeing in global container shipping markets, particularly around overcapacity. The global order book continues to swell, with total capacity on order currently at 12 million TEUs, 36% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Clerc believes the high energy costs will soon trigger a wave of slow steaming that could absorb up to 1.5 million TEUs of capacity. “We’re looking at it ourselves, and the cost benefit is quite compelling,” he said. “But if we don’t pick up scrapping and actually retire some of the ships that have not been retired over the last seven years, this is going to be extremely bumpy.” Global long-haul networks were currently sailing at 16-17 knots; Clerc said at the current price of bunker fuel, it would be “quite economical” to reduce speed to 14.5-15 knots. “Another thing that would be extremely positive from a fuel cost perspective is reopening the Red Sea,” he said. “When you’re sailing from India to the Mediterranean, you’re going to burn a lot less fuel by going through the Red Sea than you will taking the long route [around southern Africa].” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Maersk passing $500 million monthly fuel bill to customers ‘in full’: CEO

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland26

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The latest container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage includes the movement of containerized cargo handled by marine terminals and container ports, depots, container lines, drayage, consignees, importers and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers. The Journal of Commerce's container shipping news includes news from the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South America trades, and intra-Asia trades.

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

Port News

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Werner acquisition boosts Truckload Capacity Index despite low demand

FourKites takes aim at automating ocean bookings for shippers

Safety assumptions appear misguided in ‘carrier of the year’ honors