<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The G6 Alliance, which recently announced its expansion into the Trans-Pacific trade, has now provided details on the port rotations of the new services.</div>

The G6 Alliance, which recently announced its expansion into the Trans-Pacific trade, has now provided details on the port rotations of the new services.

<div>The G6 Alliance, <a>which recently announced its expansion into the Trans-Pacific trade</a>, has now <a>provided details on the port rotations</a> of the new services.Beginning in May, the alliance’s six member lines will offer six coordinated services in the Asia-to-North America East Coast trade. They will deploy more than 50 vessels with capacities ranging from 4,500 to 8,000 20-foot-equivalent units to connect some 30 ports in Asia, the U.S. and Canada, Central America, the Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The alliance said capacity offered will be similar to that of the existing trans-Pacific service offerings of...

The G6 Alliance, which recently announced its expansion into the Trans-Pacific trade , has now provided details on the port rotations of the new services. Beginning in May, the alliance’s six member lines will offer six coordinated services in the Asia-to-North America East Coast trade. They will deploy more than 50 vessels with capacities ranging from 4,500 to 8,000 20-foot-equivalent units to connect some 30 ports in Asia, the U.S. and Canada, Central America, the Caribbean, the Indian subcontinent, the Mediterranean and the Middle East. The alliance said capacity offered will be similar to that of the existing trans-Pacific service offerings of the New World Alliance and the Grand Alliance. The six new loops in the Asia-to-North America east coast trade are the result of the merger and revision of several existing services currently offered by the two alliances, augmented by one entirely new service, the CEC. Two other services — APX (New World Alliance) and PAX (Grand Alliance) — will not be affected by the new cooperation. Three of the services will transit the Suez Canal, and the other three will use the Panama Canal. The port rotations of the new G6 Alliance services are as follows: AZX: Laem Chabang, Thailand; Singapore; Colombo, Sri Lanka (Suez Canal); Damietta, Egypt; Cagliari, Italy; Halifax; New York-New Jersey; Savannah; Norfol; Cagliari; Damietta (Suez Canal); Jebel Ali, United Arab Emirates; Singapore; Laem Chabang. SVS: Hong Kong; Yantian, China; Singapore (Suez Canal); Algeciras, Spain; Norfolk; Savannah; Jacksonville; Charleston; Algeciras (Suez Canal); Colombo; Singapore; Cai Mep, Vietnam; Hong Kong. CEC: Hong Kong; Shekou, China; Yantian; Singapore (Suez Canal); New York-New Jersey; Norfolk; Charleston (Suez Canal); Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; Singapore; Cai Mep; Hong Kong. NCE: Busan, South Korea; Qingdao, China; Ningbo, China; Shanghai (Panama Canal); New York-New Jersey; Norfolk; Savannah; Miami (seasonal, Panama Canal); Busan. NYE: Kaohsiung, Taiwan; Ningbo; Shanghai; Busan (Panama Canal); Manzanillo, Panama; Savannah; New York-New Jersey; Norfolk; Jacksonville; Manzanillo (Panama Canal); Balboa, Panama; Busan; Kaohsiung. SCE: Xiamen, China; Yantian; Da Chan Bay, China; Hong Kong; Kaohsiung (Panama Canal); Manzanillo; Kingston, Jamaica; Savannah; Charleston; Kingston; Manzanillo (Panama Canal); Xiamen. The G6 Alliance, which was established in December 2011 and began operations in March 2012, merged the Grand Alliance of Hapag-Lloyd, NYK Line and Orient Overseas Container Line and the New World Alliance of APL, Hyundai Merchant Marine and MOL. Complete coverage of trans-Pacific maritime trade.

Container lines

G6 Alliance Details Trans-Pacific Routes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Meridian Speedway dispute is important because it’s one of the primary routes where a combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern railroad would look to take market share from truckload. </div>

The Meridian Speedway dispute is important because it’s one of the primary routes where a combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern railroad would look to take market share from truckload.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The US Surface Transportation Board will not intervene in a dispute over the Meridian Speedway, a critical intermodal route connecting the West Coast to the US Southeast where three railroads must team up to execute service. The unanimous ruling, issued Friday, culminates more than six months of arguing between Union Pacific Railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway, and Canadian Pacific Kansas City. The dispute boiled over last summer when FedEx and UPS trucked cargo around the stretch of track to bypass the disruptions. The two parcel giants lean on the railroads to move parcels across the US and impose stringent requirements for on-time performance in their service agreements. The Meridian Speedway, a roughly 300-mile stretch between Louisiana and Mississippi, is a joint venture in which CPKC controls 70% and Norfolk Southern controls the remaining 30%. CPKC oversees dispatching and operations. The Meridian Speedway slashes more than three days between Los Angeles and Atlanta compared with going through Memphis. The dispute centers around CPKC’s decision to restrict train lengths to 8,500 feet, while UP and NS prefer trains that are 11,000 feet long. UP argues the restriction forces them to break up the containers into two different blocks, and CPKC provides substandard service on the second train. CPKC counters that most of the sidings — akin to the shoulder of a highway — are not long enough to handle an 11,000-foot train. When there is a conflict between two trains, the CPKC train is often the one stopped for hours at a time to let the 11,000-foot UP train pass. In an unanimous decision, though, the STB decided not to intervene. “As CPKC notes, the increased dwell of UP’s ‘second train’ could also be attributable to an agreement between CPKC and [Norfolk Southern] that the second train would be scheduled to depart four hours and forty minutes after the first,” the STB wrote in the ruling. “Given these facts, there are not sufficient indicia that the conditions the Board imposed in the CP/KCS merger approval are implicated by the increased dwell at UP’s Hollywood Yard.” NS filed a complaint last October but eventually reached an agreement with CPKC and dropped the cast. Last month, however, UP filed a new complaint, citing increased dwell times for the containers going on the second train. UP asked the board to launch an investigation. The Meridian Speedway is a lynchpin to the pending UP-NS transaction before regulators, a route identified as critical to converting more than 1.17 million truckloads to intermodal over three years. However, UP’s application also called for running 11,000-foot trains, the very length that is at the heart of the dispute. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Surface Transportation Board will not intervene in a dispute over the Meridian Speedway, a critical intermodal route connecting the West Coast to the US Southeast where three railroads must team up to execute service. The unanimous ruling, issued Friday, culminates more than six months of arguing between Union Pacific Railroad, Norfolk Southern Railway, and Canadian Pacific Kansas City. The dispute boiled over last summer when FedEx and UPS trucked cargo around the stretch of track to bypass the disruptions. The two parcel giants lean on the railroads to move parcels across the US and impose stringent requirements for on-time performance in their service agreements. The Meridian Speedway, a roughly 300-mile stretch between Louisiana and Mississippi, is a joint venture in which CPKC controls 70% and Norfolk Southern controls the remaining 30%. CPKC oversees dispatching and operations. The Meridian Speedway slashes more than three days between Los Angeles and Atlanta compared with going through Memphis. The dispute centers around CPKC’s decision to restrict train lengths to 8,500 feet, while UP and NS prefer trains that are 11,000 feet long. UP argues the restriction forces them to break up the containers into two different blocks, and CPKC provides substandard service on the second train. CPKC counters that most of the sidings — akin to the shoulder of a highway — are not long enough to handle an 11,000-foot train. When there is a conflict between two trains, the CPKC train is often the one stopped for hours at a time to let the 11,000-foot UP train pass. In an unanimous decision, though, the STB decided not to intervene. “As CPKC notes, the increased dwell of UP’s ‘second train’ could also be attributable to an agreement between CPKC and [Norfolk Southern] that the second train would be scheduled to depart four hours and forty minutes after the first,” the STB wrote in the ruling. “Given these facts, there are not sufficient indicia that the conditions the Board imposed in the CP/KCS merger approval are implicated by the increased dwell at UP’s Hollywood Yard.” NS filed a complaint last October but eventually reached an agreement with CPKC and dropped the cast. Last month, however, UP filed a new complaint, citing increased dwell times for the containers going on the second train. UP asked the board to launch an investigation. The Meridian Speedway is a lynchpin to the pending UP-NS transaction before regulators, a route identified as critical to converting more than 1.17 million truckloads to intermodal over three years. However, UP’s application also called for running 11,000-foot trains, the very length that is at the heart of the dispute. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

STB declines to intervene on Meridian Speedway dispute

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The UP-NS merger and ONE's Seaspan stake look like separate deals in separate industries, but they are the same move, writes Paul Tonsager. </div>

The UP-NS merger and ONE's Seaspan stake look like separate deals in separate industries, but they are the same move, writes Paul Tonsager.

<div class="phx-topic">Two consequential infrastructure transactions are moving simultaneously through their respective regulatory processes, in separate industries, with a single and critical purpose: Secure assets and expand infrastructure. In rail, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are advancing a proposed $85 billion merger that would unite UP's western network with NS's eastern footprint into a single system spanning 43 states. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) rejected the initial application in January as incomplete; the carriers have committed to refiling by April 30, 2026. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6186769_0.1.jpg"></img></div>In ocean, Ocean Network Express has agreed to increase its ownership stake in Poseidon Corp. — parent company of Seaspan Corporation, the world's largest independent containership lessor — to 48.9%. ONE is a Singapore-based joint venture of three Japanese shipping conglomerates; Poseidon is incorporated in the Marshall Islands and tax-resident in the United Kingdom. The regulatory approvals cited in the announcement almost certainly refer to Japan's competition authority and possibly the EU — not the United States, which has no STB equivalent for ocean shipping. That gap is part of the story. Also in ocean: Hapag-Lloyd, Germany's largest carrier, has agreed to acquire ZIM Integrated Shipping Services in a deal valued at approximately $4.2 billion, a transaction that would create a combined fleet exceeding 4.8 million TEUs. Hapag-Lloyd is one of Seaspan's charter customers, along with MSC, Maersk, CMA CGM, Cosco, Evergreen and ONE. The world's seven largest container lines all rent tonnage from the platform that ONE is moving to control. That fact has not appeared in any headline covering this transaction. The surface details differ. The underlying logic is identical: the dominant players in each mode are moving to consolidate control of the infrastructure layer that competitors depend on. The difference is that one transaction faces a rigorous, public, multi-year regulatory process. The other faces comparatively limited scrutiny from any authority with real enforcement power over the US freight market. <h3>The network versus the tonnage platform </h3>In rail, the infrastructure being consolidated is the network itself. A UP-NS combination would create a single operator controlling track, terminals and dispatch authority across the full breadth of the country. For shippers benefiting from UP-NS interchange competition on transcontinental lanes, the merger eliminates a competitive option that cannot be recreated once it closes. In ocean, the infrastructure being consolidated is the tonnage platform. Seaspan owns 241 vessels with more than 2.5 million TEUs of capacity and charters them to virtually every major container line. ONE, approaching half-ownership of Seaspan's parent, is not acquiring a competitor's ships. It is acquiring a structural position in the platform that determines which carrier gets what vessel, at what charter rate, on what timeline. The rail analog is TTX Company, the carrier-owned flatcar cooperative whose shareholders — BNSF, UP, NS among them — own the equipment pool that their competitors must also rent. ONE's Seaspan stake is the TTX play, extended to the vessel market. <h3>The 48.9% question </h3>ONE's ownership threshold is a deliberate structural choice. Crossing 50% would likely require consolidation of Poseidon's debt-heavy balance sheet onto ONE's financial statements and would reframe the transaction — from a minority investment to a control acquisition of the dominant vessel-leasing platform — in ways that invite harder antitrust scrutiny in Japan and the EU. At 48.9%, ONE secures board influence and fleet planning access without pulling those triggers. The equity is entirely private — Atlas Corp., Seaspan’s parent company, was delisted in 2023. The primary seller was Fairfax Financial Holdings, run by Prem Watsa, which sold a 23.2% stake but retains approximately 22.1% of Poseidon. Watsa is choosing his partner, not his exit. Any future move toward majority control runs through him and the remaining insiders — on their timeline, at their price. <h3>What shippers are actually facing </h3>Considered individually, neither the UP-NS combination nor the ONE-Seaspan stake is disqualifying. Considered together — alongside Hapag-Lloyd's pending acquisition of ZIM — they describe a synchronized compression of freight infrastructure across two modes simultaneously. Shippers with rail exposure on transcontinental lanes face a market in which UP and NS no longer compete at interchange. Shippers dependent on ocean capacity face a market in which the largest vessel lessor is approaching control by one of its own customers. For manufacturers, retailers and agricultural exporters moving product across both modes — which describes most significant US freight — the implications compound. The STB's rejection of the UP-NS application signals that rigorous competitive impact analysis is required before major rail transactions proceed. No equivalent process exists for the ONE-Seaspan transaction in the United States. The Federal Maritime Commission has limited authority over foreign vessel ownership structures. The transaction will be decided in Tokyo, Brussels and Hamilton — not Washington. Two modes. Two mechanisms. One direction. The infrastructure consolidation story of 2026 is not being told as a single story. It should be. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO) and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals &amp; Switches. Contact him at <a href="mailto:paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io">paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io</a>. </div>

Two consequential infrastructure transactions are moving simultaneously through their respective regulatory processes, in separate industries, with a single and critical purpose: Secure assets and expand infrastructure. In rail, Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern are advancing a proposed $85 billion merger that would unite UP's western network with NS's eastern footprint into a single system spanning 43 states. The Surface Transportation Board (STB) rejected the initial application in January as incomplete; the carriers have committed to refiling by April 30, 2026. In ocean, Ocean Network Express has agreed to increase its ownership stake in Poseidon Corp. — parent company of Seaspan Corporation, the world's largest independent containership lessor — to 48.9%. ONE is a Singapore-based joint venture of three Japanese shipping conglomerates; Poseidon is incorporated in the Marshall Islands and tax-resident in the United Kingdom. The regulatory approvals cited in the announcement almost certainly refer to Japan's competition authority and possibly the EU — not the United States, which has no STB equivalent for ocean shipping. That gap is part of the story. Also in ocean: Hapag-Lloyd, Germany's largest carrier, has agreed to acquire ZIM Integrated Shipping Services in a deal valued at approximately $4.2 billion, a transaction that would create a combined fleet exceeding 4.8 million TEUs. Hapag-Lloyd is one of Seaspan's charter customers, along with MSC, Maersk, CMA CGM, Cosco, Evergreen and ONE. The world's seven largest container lines all rent tonnage from the platform that ONE is moving to control. That fact has not appeared in any headline covering this transaction. The surface details differ. The underlying logic is identical: the dominant players in each mode are moving to consolidate control of the infrastructure layer that competitors depend on. The difference is that one transaction faces a rigorous, public, multi-year regulatory process. The other faces comparatively limited scrutiny from any authority with real enforcement power over the US freight market. The network versus the tonnage platform In rail, the infrastructure being consolidated is the network itself. A UP-NS combination would create a single operator controlling track, terminals and dispatch authority across the full breadth of the country. For shippers benefiting from UP-NS interchange competition on transcontinental lanes, the merger eliminates a competitive option that cannot be recreated once it closes. In ocean, the infrastructure being consolidated is the tonnage platform. Seaspan owns 241 vessels with more than 2.5 million TEUs of capacity and charters them to virtually every major container line. ONE, approaching half-ownership of Seaspan's parent, is not acquiring a competitor's ships. It is acquiring a structural position in the platform that determines which carrier gets what vessel, at what charter rate, on what timeline. The rail analog is TTX Company, the carrier-owned flatcar cooperative whose shareholders — BNSF, UP, NS among them — own the equipment pool that their competitors must also rent. ONE's Seaspan stake is the TTX play, extended to the vessel market. The 48.9% question ONE's ownership threshold is a deliberate structural choice. Crossing 50% would likely require consolidation of Poseidon's debt-heavy balance sheet onto ONE's financial statements and would reframe the transaction — from a minority investment to a control acquisition of the dominant vessel-leasing platform — in ways that invite harder antitrust scrutiny in Japan and the EU. At 48.9%, ONE secures board influence and fleet planning access without pulling those triggers. The equity is entirely private — Atlas Corp., Seaspan’s parent company, was delisted in 2023. The primary seller was Fairfax Financial Holdings, run by Prem Watsa, which sold a 23.2% stake but retains approximately 22.1% of Poseidon. Watsa is choosing his partner, not his exit. Any future move toward majority control runs through him and the remaining insiders — on their timeline, at their price. What shippers are actually facing Considered individually, neither the UP-NS combination nor the ONE-Seaspan stake is disqualifying. Considered together — alongside Hapag-Lloyd's pending acquisition of ZIM — they describe a synchronized compression of freight infrastructure across two modes simultaneously. Shippers with rail exposure on transcontinental lanes face a market in which UP and NS no longer compete at interchange. Shippers dependent on ocean capacity face a market in which the largest vessel lessor is approaching control by one of its own customers. For manufacturers, retailers and agricultural exporters moving product across both modes — which describes most significant US freight — the implications compound. The STB's rejection of the UP-NS application signals that rigorous competitive impact analysis is required before major rail transactions proceed. No equivalent process exists for the ONE-Seaspan transaction in the United States. The Federal Maritime Commission has limited authority over foreign vessel ownership structures. The transaction will be decided in Tokyo, Brussels and Hamilton — not Washington. Two modes. Two mechanisms. One direction. The infrastructure consolidation story of 2026 is not being told as a single story. It should be. Paul Tonsager has held executive roles at Maersk, CN Rail, CN Worldwide, Coyote (RXO) and Patriot Rail. He is the founder of Integrated Multimodal Solutions LLC and author of the Substack newsletter Signals & Switches. Contact him at paul.tonsager@multimodalsolutions.io .

Rail and ocean carriers consolidating shipping infrastructure: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">An estimated 30% of Asia–Europe air cargo capacity is routed via the Middle East, and with options through the region severely constrained by the US-Iran war, a rush for Asia–Europe air cargo capacity is pushing up prices. </div>

An estimated 30% of Asia–Europe air cargo capacity is routed via the Middle East, and with options through the region severely constrained by the US-Iran war, a rush for Asia–Europe air cargo capacity is pushing up prices.

<div class="phx-topic">Shippers of Asia–Europe air cargo are being hit with a double whammy of rapidly rising freight rates and soaring fuel surcharges as Middle East cargo gets rerouted, China picks up production after Lunar New Year and jet fuel prices double. An estimated 30% of Asia–Europe air cargo is routed via the Middle East, and with options through the region severely constrained by the ongoing US-Iran war, a rush for Asia–Europe air cargo capacity is pushing up rates with hefty fuel surcharges rolled out on top. Niall van de Wouw, air freight officer at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said dynamic load factors on the Asia–Europe trade lane rose to 86% last week, up from 80% in the week prior. “That makes it overall a very tight market that will require some creativity to find spare capacity,” he said, but he warned that solutions will come at a price. Ray Zedov, an analyst at Rotate, said some forwarders were employing the creative and costly option of moving cargo from Asia to Europe in the bellies of passenger planes via North America, which was a clear indication there was not enough direct Asia–Europe capacity available. ”This routing via North America will be quite expensive given that trans-Pacific carriers were already full on the eastbound routes prior to the war,” he said. While data from Freightos shows spot rates on China–Europe are up around 13% compared to last week, the rates from South Asia to Europe have increased 82% since before the war started. The Baltic Air Index had Singapore outbound rates up 47.6% last week compared to the previous week as Middle East airspace closures drove diversions from Gulf hubs to Asian gateways, tightening capacity. Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, said rates climbed sharply following the outbreak of war and the airspace closures, but in the last few days prices have leveled off on many lanes. “That may reflect some capacity recovery by Emirates, as well as Etihad, or the addition of direct Asia-Europe capacity by European airlines and carriers from the Far East,” he said. Several freighter operators and integrators have repositioned capacity to serve growing demand on Asia–Europe markets, but a protracted regional conflict could see rates climb even higher. “If this continues, we will see increases of 100% to 200% on the short-term market,” Van de Wouw noted. “In fact, I am picking up anecdotal evidence that this is already happening in selected markets.” <h3>Limited flight availability via Middle East </h3>The war is entering its third week and flights from international carriers remain suspended to the region’s busiest airports of Abu Dhabi, Amman, Bahrain, Doha, Dubai and Tel Aviv. UAE carriers Emirates and Etihad are operating limited flights to the regional hubs of Dubai and Abu Dhabi and Qatar Cargo, the region’s largest air freight carrier, is not flying in or out of its home base of Doha where Qatari airspace remains closed. Qatar Cargo is the largest air freight operator in the Gulf with a 5.9% share of global capacity and Emirates Skycargo second with 4.9% and Etihad holding a 1.5% share of global capacity, data from air cargo analyst Rotate shows. Total capacity to and from the Middle Eastern airports affected by the US-Iran war is down 90% compared to normal pre-war levels. South Asian origins in particular are heavily dependent on capacity via the Gulf, said Frederic Horst, managing director for Australia-based Trade and Transport Group. He told the Journal of Commerce that 35% of all Indian freight traffic and 46% of cargo traffic from Pakistan and Bangladesh was routed via the Persian Gulf. Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Dimerco Express Group, said with limited opportunity to ship via the main Gulf airports, the market was looking for direct flights from Asia into Europe or services that fly via Asian hubs. “As factories re-open after Chinese New Year, we will see cargo using Middle East carriers in the past moving to Asian hubs including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and Japan,” she told the Journal of Commerce. “That will impact on the first leg of capacity from origins into those hubs and that will squeeze capacity for intra-Asia and trans-Pacific eastbound,” she added. <h3>Fuel surcharges on the rise </h3>Airlines are reviewing their fuel surcharges weekly instead of every month as the war-driven spike in prices piles additional cost on top of what is already a significant portion of a carrier’s expenses. Cathay Pacific’s cargo fuel surcharge will increase from HK$3.20 ($0.41)/kg on March 19 to HK$12.9 ($1.65)/kg from March 20. Lufthansa Cargo raised its air freight surcharge from €0.85 ($0.97)/kg to €1.20 ($1.27)/kg, effective March 16, while IAG Cargo has hedged more than 60% of its fuel for 2026 and has not announced any new fuel surcharge. Jet fuel typically accounts for 20% to 30% of an airline’s total cost base and with international carriers forced to fly longer distances to avoid Middle East conflict zones with reduced payloads, those costs are mounting fast. “Airspace restrictions or routing adjustments may require airlines to operate longer flight paths between global hubs, increasing fuel demand at a time when supply conditions are already tight,” global forwarder Logfret said in a market update. “This combination of supply constraints and operational adjustments has intensified cost pressures across both passenger and cargo aviation sectors.” Maersk told customers in an advisory Friday that its fuel surcharges will be reviewed on a weekly basis and adjusted in line with developments in aviation fuel prices, based on established market indices. For contract renewals where no fuel surcharge mechanism is in place, Maersk has proposed that 15% of the rate is allocated to fuel. “At the same time, the evolving situation is placing pressure on global air freight capacity and routing options,” Maersk noted. “As a result, Maersk Air Freight will apply a transit disruption surcharge in respect of the additional costs associated with securing capacity, rerouting shipments and maintaining service continuity on affected operations.” <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/as-war-rages-multimodal-demand-surges-on-asia-europe-landbridge-6185162">Demand is also growing for multimodal alternatives</a> with road freight being used to move cargo from Asia to Europe and between transport hubs in the Middle East as an alternative to air. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Shippers of Asia–Europe air cargo are being hit with a double whammy of rapidly rising freight rates and soaring fuel surcharges as Middle East cargo gets rerouted, China picks up production after Lunar New Year and jet fuel prices double. An estimated 30% of Asia–Europe air cargo is routed via the Middle East, and with options through the region severely constrained by the ongoing US-Iran war, a rush for Asia–Europe air cargo capacity is pushing up rates with hefty fuel surcharges rolled out on top. Niall van de Wouw, air freight officer at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said dynamic load factors on the Asia–Europe trade lane rose to 86% last week, up from 80% in the week prior. “That makes it overall a very tight market that will require some creativity to find spare capacity,” he said, but he warned that solutions will come at a price. Ray Zedov, an analyst at Rotate, said some forwarders were employing the creative and costly option of moving cargo from Asia to Europe in the bellies of passenger planes via North America, which was a clear indication there was not enough direct Asia–Europe capacity available. ”This routing via North America will be quite expensive given that trans-Pacific carriers were already full on the eastbound routes prior to the war,” he said. While data from Freightos shows spot rates on China–Europe are up around 13% compared to last week, the rates from South Asia to Europe have increased 82% since before the war started. The Baltic Air Index had Singapore outbound rates up 47.6% last week compared to the previous week as Middle East airspace closures drove diversions from Gulf hubs to Asian gateways, tightening capacity. Judah Levine, head of research at Freightos, said rates climbed sharply following the outbreak of war and the airspace closures, but in the last few days prices have leveled off on many lanes. “That may reflect some capacity recovery by Emirates, as well as Etihad, or the addition of direct Asia-Europe capacity by European airlines and carriers from the Far East,” he said. Several freighter operators and integrators have repositioned capacity to serve growing demand on Asia–Europe markets, but a protracted regional conflict could see rates climb even higher. “If this continues, we will see increases of 100% to 200% on the short-term market,” Van de Wouw noted. “In fact, I am picking up anecdotal evidence that this is already happening in selected markets.” Limited flight availability via Middle East The war is entering its third week and flights from international carriers remain suspended to the region’s busiest airports of Abu Dhabi, Amman, Bahrain, Doha, Dubai and Tel Aviv. UAE carriers Emirates and Etihad are operating limited flights to the regional hubs of Dubai and Abu Dhabi and Qatar Cargo, the region’s largest air freight carrier, is not flying in or out of its home base of Doha where Qatari airspace remains closed. Qatar Cargo is the largest air freight operator in the Gulf with a 5.9% share of global capacity and Emirates Skycargo second with 4.9% and Etihad holding a 1.5% share of global capacity, data from air cargo analyst Rotate shows. Total capacity to and from the Middle Eastern airports affected by the US-Iran war is down 90% compared to normal pre-war levels. South Asian origins in particular are heavily dependent on capacity via the Gulf, said Frederic Horst, managing director for Australia-based Trade and Transport Group. He told the Journal of Commerce that 35% of all Indian freight traffic and 46% of cargo traffic from Pakistan and Bangladesh was routed via the Persian Gulf. Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Dimerco Express Group, said with limited opportunity to ship via the main Gulf airports, the market was looking for direct flights from Asia into Europe or services that fly via Asian hubs. “As factories re-open after Chinese New Year, we will see cargo using Middle East carriers in the past moving to Asian hubs including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea and Japan,” she told the Journal of Commerce. “That will impact on the first leg of capacity from origins into those hubs and that will squeeze capacity for intra-Asia and trans-Pacific eastbound,” she added. Fuel surcharges on the rise Airlines are reviewing their fuel surcharges weekly instead of every month as the war-driven spike in prices piles additional cost on top of what is already a significant portion of a carrier’s expenses. Cathay Pacific’s cargo fuel surcharge will increase from HK$3.20 ($0.41)/kg on March 19 to HK$12.9 ($1.65)/kg from March 20. Lufthansa Cargo raised its air freight surcharge from €0.85 ($0.97)/kg to €1.20 ($1.27)/kg, effective March 16, while IAG Cargo has hedged more than 60% of its fuel for 2026 and has not announced any new fuel surcharge. Jet fuel typically accounts for 20% to 30% of an airline’s total cost base and with international carriers forced to fly longer distances to avoid Middle East conflict zones with reduced payloads, those costs are mounting fast. “Airspace restrictions or routing adjustments may require airlines to operate longer flight paths between global hubs, increasing fuel demand at a time when supply conditions are already tight,” global forwarder Logfret said in a market update. “This combination of supply constraints and operational adjustments has intensified cost pressures across both passenger and cargo aviation sectors.” Maersk told customers in an advisory Friday that its fuel surcharges will be reviewed on a weekly basis and adjusted in line with developments in aviation fuel prices, based on established market indices. For contract renewals where no fuel surcharge mechanism is in place, Maersk has proposed that 15% of the rate is allocated to fuel. “At the same time, the evolving situation is placing pressure on global air freight capacity and routing options,” Maersk noted. “As a result, Maersk Air Freight will apply a transit disruption surcharge in respect of the additional costs associated with securing capacity, rerouting shipments and maintaining service continuity on affected operations.” Demand is also growing for multimodal alternatives with road freight being used to move cargo from Asia to Europe and between transport hubs in the Middle East as an alternative to air. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Carriers News

Asia-Europe

Air Cargo

Asia-Europe air cargo space tightens as rates, fuel surcharges soar

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While the logistical hurdles of sending cargo to the region are more of an inconvenience at this point for US exporters rather than a full-blown crisis, shippers see a bigger risk in the war’s longevity and the downstream effect of higher oil prices.</div>

While the logistical hurdles of sending cargo to the region are more of an inconvenience at this point for US exporters rather than a full-blown crisis, shippers see a bigger risk in the war’s longevity and the downstream effect of higher oil prices.

<div class="phx-topic">US exporters are scrambling to locate containers they have shipped to the Middle East but were subsequently dropped off at unknown ports after ocean carriers were forced to halt almost all services due to the war with Iran. While the logistical hurdles for Middle East cargo are more of an inconvenience at this point for US exporters rather than a full-blown crisis, shippers see a bigger risk in the war’s longevity and the downstream effect of higher oil prices. Mediterranean Shipping Co. invoked an “end of voyage” clause this week on exports into Jebel Ali in Dubai, allowing the carrier to discharge containers at the next available port on the ship’s rotation, forwarders tell the Journal of Commerce. The end-of-voyage clause also includes an $800 surcharge. Stephen Zambo, president of third-party logistics provider AGL Group, said he has about 70 containers on the water with MSC destined for the Middle East. He is now figuring out where the next port of call will be for those boxes and bracing his customers for more costs and delays due to the redirections. Along with those containers, AGL has three containers on the ONE Majesty that was attacked in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. Although the vessel suffered some damage, Zambo was told the ship would continue its original voyage. “We’re having to figure out each day what’s going on and what we need to do,” Zambo said. “It’s like it’s been over the last two years with tariffs and other crises, sort of wait-and-see how things play out and act accordingly.” MSC handles about half the container volumes from the US to the Middle East each year, which amounts to about 290,000 TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Maersk and CMA CGM are the second- and third-busiest carriers on that trade lane. Tim Avanzato, director of global logistics for paper and plastic products maker Lanca Sales, told the Journal of Commerce there’s little risk of that US export cargo backing up at ports, as most of it can be sold to other markets. However, the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting surge in oil prices is concerning because that raises the cost of the products that Lanca Sales distributes. Water and hygiene services company Ecolab imposed a 10% to 14% energy surcharge on its products on Wednesday due to crude oil futures rising to over $100 per barrel. “The Mideast situation is more of an inconvenience at this point,” Avanzato said. “But the fallout if this goes on for weeks? It’s a catastrophe.” Zambo said there are other markets that US exporters can tap. But some products such as certain softwoods are milled specifically for Middle East markets. “The lumber producers are now trying to figure out what to do with the product they have,” he said. Higher oil prices have also resulted in escalating fuel surcharges for all trades. Zambo said he has been in discussions about shipping trans-Atlantic cargo into the US, but carriers have been unwilling to commit to rates due to the surge in fuel prices. <h3>Reviewing new routes </h3>The director of global logistics for a Houston-based chemicals company told the Journal of Commerce he is expecting his iso-tanks onboard MSC vessels destined for Jebel Ali to land in India now due to the end-of-voyage clause. He is now looking at new routes outside of the Middle East’s main port. CMA CGM, which last week suspended all Middle East bookings, on Wednesday reopened bookings for alternative ports such as the UAE’s Khor Fakkan or Oman’s Sohar port, which sit outside of the Strait of Hormuz. CMA CGM is also offering service to Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea port of Jeddah <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/as-war-rages-multimodal-demand-surges-on-asia-europe-landbridge-6185162">and trucking cargo from there</a>. But Jeddah would also involve transiting the Red Sea, which raises the risk of a potential attack by Iran-aligned Houthi rebels. The source said the regional risk is such that MSC has also suspended bookings into Israel’s Haifa, leaving Zim Integrated Shipping Services as the only carrier to service that port. MSC’s suspension of Haifa service could not be independently confirmed. “The Red Sea is a mess,” the executive said. “I have no confidence it will get there.” He added that he’s looking to move containers to Egypt’s Port Said, a transshipment hub outside of the immediate warzone at the northern end of the Suez Canal on the Mediterranean Sea. Outside of servicing his customers, the source said his main concern now is how the oil price spike will play out for the economy. The cost of intermediate chemicals from the Middle East, including ammonia and cyclo-hexane, has jumped, resulting in further cost pressures for his own company’s products. “Fuel costs are going to kill everybody,” he said. “That’s the wildcard.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US exporters are scrambling to locate containers they have shipped to the Middle East but were subsequently dropped off at unknown ports after ocean carriers were forced to halt almost all services due to the war with Iran. While the logistical hurdles for Middle East cargo are more of an inconvenience at this point for US exporters rather than a full-blown crisis, shippers see a bigger risk in the war’s longevity and the downstream effect of higher oil prices. Mediterranean Shipping Co. invoked an “end of voyage” clause this week on exports into Jebel Ali in Dubai, allowing the carrier to discharge containers at the next available port on the ship’s rotation, forwarders tell the Journal of Commerce. The end-of-voyage clause also includes an $800 surcharge. Stephen Zambo, president of third-party logistics provider AGL Group, said he has about 70 containers on the water with MSC destined for the Middle East. He is now figuring out where the next port of call will be for those boxes and bracing his customers for more costs and delays due to the redirections. Along with those containers, AGL has three containers on the ONE Majesty that was attacked in the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday. Although the vessel suffered some damage, Zambo was told the ship would continue its original voyage. “We’re having to figure out each day what’s going on and what we need to do,” Zambo said. “It’s like it’s been over the last two years with tariffs and other crises, sort of wait-and-see how things play out and act accordingly.” MSC handles about half the container volumes from the US to the Middle East each year, which amounts to about 290,000 TEUs, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Maersk and CMA CGM are the second- and third-busiest carriers on that trade lane. Tim Avanzato, director of global logistics for paper and plastic products maker Lanca Sales, told the Journal of Commerce there’s little risk of that US export cargo backing up at ports, as most of it can be sold to other markets. However, the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz and the resulting surge in oil prices is concerning because that raises the cost of the products that Lanca Sales distributes. Water and hygiene services company Ecolab imposed a 10% to 14% energy surcharge on its products on Wednesday due to crude oil futures rising to over $100 per barrel. “The Mideast situation is more of an inconvenience at this point,” Avanzato said. “But the fallout if this goes on for weeks? It’s a catastrophe.” Zambo said there are other markets that US exporters can tap. But some products such as certain softwoods are milled specifically for Middle East markets. “The lumber producers are now trying to figure out what to do with the product they have,” he said. Higher oil prices have also resulted in escalating fuel surcharges for all trades. Zambo said he has been in discussions about shipping trans-Atlantic cargo into the US, but carriers have been unwilling to commit to rates due to the surge in fuel prices. Reviewing new routes The director of global logistics for a Houston-based chemicals company told the Journal of Commerce he is expecting his iso-tanks onboard MSC vessels destined for Jebel Ali to land in India now due to the end-of-voyage clause. He is now looking at new routes outside of the Middle East’s main port. CMA CGM, which last week suspended all Middle East bookings, on Wednesday reopened bookings for alternative ports such as the UAE’s Khor Fakkan or Oman’s Sohar port, which sit outside of the Strait of Hormuz. CMA CGM is also offering service to Saudi Arabia’s Red Sea port of Jeddah and trucking cargo from there . But Jeddah would also involve transiting the Red Sea, which raises the risk of a potential attack by Iran-aligned Houthi rebels. The source said the regional risk is such that MSC has also suspended bookings into Israel’s Haifa, leaving Zim Integrated Shipping Services as the only carrier to service that port. MSC’s suspension of Haifa service could not be independently confirmed. “The Red Sea is a mess,” the executive said. “I have no confidence it will get there.” He added that he’s looking to move containers to Egypt’s Port Said, a transshipment hub outside of the immediate warzone at the northern end of the Suez Canal on the Mediterranean Sea. Outside of servicing his customers, the source said his main concern now is how the oil price spike will play out for the economy. The cost of intermediate chemicals from the Middle East, including ammonia and cyclo-hexane, has jumped, resulting in further cost pressures for his own company’s products. “Fuel costs are going to kill everybody,” he said. “That’s the wildcard.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Container Shipping News

Maritime

US exports to Middle East in limbo amid war zone service disruptions

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container shipping has come a long way in mastering the art of blank sailings, redeployments, slow steaming and other forms of proactive capacity management, mitigating the impact of much-discussed overcapacity, attendees at TPM26 were told. </div>

Container shipping has come a long way in mastering the art of blank sailings, redeployments, slow steaming and other forms of proactive capacity management, mitigating the impact of much-discussed overcapacity, attendees at TPM26 were told.

<div class="phx-topic">A slide presented at TPM26 on March 2 by Maersk’s global head of ocean product said it all. The slide showed just two lines: heavy volatility in volumes over a period of time, and more or less flat vessel utilization over the same time period. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6185926_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The conclusion: Consistent vessel utilization levels in the face of much more volatile volumes point to effective capacity management by carriers. “With very volatile demand, we actually see a utilization which is quite stable,” said the Maersk executive, Johan Sigsgaard. “And of course, the balance between the two is the deployment adjustments that are made on a week-to-week basis, either in the form of ship size adjustments or in the form of [blank sailings].” In other words, as of 2026, the carrier industry has come a long way in mastering the art of blank sailings, redeployments, slow steaming and other forms of proactive capacity management, mitigating the impact of much-discussed overcapacity. Many others have noticed what amounts to a fundamental shift from the pre-COVID state of the industry and a likely long-term reality of the market going forward. The new reality is that the industry can no longer be understood in terms of supply and demand on paper, and must consider multiple forms of brakes on capacity. “We see this very clearly in the market on a day-to-day basis,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at MTS Logistics in New York, who attended TPM26. “Since the COVID cargo surge ended, carriers have become much more disciplined in managing capacity through blank sailings and vessel deployment to maintain rate levels. “With excess supply still present, capacity management will remain one of the most important tools carriers rely on over the next few years, regardless of how volatile the macro environment is,” he added. <h3>‘Growing relevance’ of capacity post-COVID </h3>Carriers took their first steps toward capacity management at scale during the 2008–09 financial crisis when they laid up about 10% of global tonnage, according to industry analyst Lars Jensen. At the same time, they jointly agreed to engage in systemwide slow steaming in response to a 10% drop in global volumes. Blank sailings began as a regular carrier tactic around 2013. Capacity was further removed due to a series of macro shocks that began in 2020, including COVID-19, the attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, the Panama Canal drought, and most recently the war with Iran. Growing systemic port congestion is another factor pulling more capacity off the market. All that means is that despite a record order book amounting to about 35% of the existing fleet, which has caused several financial analysts to be downbeat on carrier stocks, the downside risks for carriers are much less severe and more manageable than prior to COVID due to the growing relevance of the capacity side of the equation. The industry is experiencing an “illusion of a normal down cycle,” Flexport’s global head of ocean, Trine Nielsen, told TPM26 on March 2. “We do have the macro volatility layer, as we call it, and I think just the past week and a half [of the Middle East war and Supreme Court tariff ruling] ... is the perfect proof of how quickly the world changes.” Nielsen added: “We do have what we call micro volatility, and we see this becoming more and more frequent. One aspect is the capacity management, dealing with blank sailings, dealing with [cargo] rollings, equipment issues that, of course, are becoming even more difficult considering the macro environment that we’re in.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A slide presented at TPM26 on March 2 by Maersk’s global head of ocean product said it all. The slide showed just two lines: heavy volatility in volumes over a period of time, and more or less flat vessel utilization over the same time period. The conclusion: Consistent vessel utilization levels in the face of much more volatile volumes point to effective capacity management by carriers. “With very volatile demand, we actually see a utilization which is quite stable,” said the Maersk executive, Johan Sigsgaard. “And of course, the balance between the two is the deployment adjustments that are made on a week-to-week basis, either in the form of ship size adjustments or in the form of [blank sailings].” In other words, as of 2026, the carrier industry has come a long way in mastering the art of blank sailings, redeployments, slow steaming and other forms of proactive capacity management, mitigating the impact of much-discussed overcapacity. Many others have noticed what amounts to a fundamental shift from the pre-COVID state of the industry and a likely long-term reality of the market going forward. The new reality is that the industry can no longer be understood in terms of supply and demand on paper, and must consider multiple forms of brakes on capacity. “We see this very clearly in the market on a day-to-day basis,” said Serkan Kavas, executive vice president for imports at MTS Logistics in New York, who attended TPM26. “Since the COVID cargo surge ended, carriers have become much more disciplined in managing capacity through blank sailings and vessel deployment to maintain rate levels. “With excess supply still present, capacity management will remain one of the most important tools carriers rely on over the next few years, regardless of how volatile the macro environment is,” he added. ‘Growing relevance’ of capacity post-COVID Carriers took their first steps toward capacity management at scale during the 2008–09 financial crisis when they laid up about 10% of global tonnage, according to industry analyst Lars Jensen. At the same time, they jointly agreed to engage in systemwide slow steaming in response to a 10% drop in global volumes. Blank sailings began as a regular carrier tactic around 2013. Capacity was further removed due to a series of macro shocks that began in 2020, including COVID-19, the attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, the Panama Canal drought, and most recently the war with Iran. Growing systemic port congestion is another factor pulling more capacity off the market. All that means is that despite a record order book amounting to about 35% of the existing fleet, which has caused several financial analysts to be downbeat on carrier stocks, the downside risks for carriers are much less severe and more manageable than prior to COVID due to the growing relevance of the capacity side of the equation. The industry is experiencing an “illusion of a normal down cycle,” Flexport’s global head of ocean, Trine Nielsen, told TPM26 on March 2. “We do have the macro volatility layer, as we call it, and I think just the past week and a half [of the Middle East war and Supreme Court tariff ruling] ... is the perfect proof of how quickly the world changes.” Nielsen added: “We do have what we call micro volatility, and we see this becoming more and more frequent. One aspect is the capacity management, dealing with blank sailings, dealing with [cargo] rollings, equipment issues that, of course, are becoming even more difficult considering the macro environment that we’re in.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Ocean carriers employ effective capacity management despite market volatility

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 FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

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

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% 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

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

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

Upgrade 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

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

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 only editorially independent conference for the breakbulk & project cargo industry

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

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.

Forwarding

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

Breakbulk News

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

STB declines to intervene on Meridian Speedway dispute

Rail and ocean carriers consolidating shipping infrastructure: analyst

Asia-Europe air cargo space tightens as rates, fuel surcharges soar