<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There were also concerns whether the joint venture between bulk shipper Pan Ocean and private equity firm JKL had sufficient financial resources for the deal.</div>

There were also concerns whether the joint venture between bulk shipper Pan Ocean and private equity firm JKL had sufficient financial resources for the deal.

3687575_FI.jpg

<div>Talks over the $4.8 billion privatization of HMM, South Korea’s largest container line, have collapsed after its government-backed shareholders and the preferred bidders failed to agree on a deal, the participants announced Wednesday. The move ends nearly a year of speculation about the future of HMM, the world’s eighth-largest container line and multipurpose vessel operator, after Korea Development Bank (KDB) and Korea Ocean Business Corporation (KOBC) put their combined stake in the carrier up for sale last March. The two own 57.9% and hold almost $1.3 billion worth of bonds issued by HMM. One of the main sticking points was...

Talks over the $4.8 billion privatization of HMM, South Korea’s largest container line, have collapsed after its government-backed shareholders and the preferred bidders failed to agree on a deal, the participants announced Wednesday. The move ends nearly a year of speculation about the future of HMM, the world’s eighth-largest container line and multipurpose vessel operator, after Korea Development Bank (KDB) and Korea Ocean Business Corporation (KOBC) put their combined stake in the carrier up for sale last March. The two own 57.9% and hold almost $1.3 billion worth of bonds issued by HMM. One of the main sticking points was the lack of management control the new owners would have over HMM. There were also concerns over whether the favored consortium, a joint venture between Pan Ocean, a bulk shipping company controlled by South Korean conglomerate Harim Holdings, and private equity firm JKL had sufficient financial resources for the deal. “Any private company will find it difficult to accept a deal that would allow only the biggest shareholder status without guaranteeing substantive management rights,” Harim Holdings said in a statement Wednesday, highlighting the lack of governance it would have. KDB and KOBC rejected Harim’s bid for management oversight even though the company said it would limit HMM’s shareholder dividend payments and lock in its share ownership to prevent abuse of HMM’s larger financial assets. Talks to agree stock sales and shareholders’ agreements started on Dec. 20 and were originally scheduled to end on Jan. 23 but continued to Feb. 6 to overcome main issues, including management control. “Although negotiations were conducted in good faith, due to differences of opinion on some matters, negotiations broke down,” KDB and KOBC said in joint statement Wednesday. KDB and KOBC have been HMM’s largest shareholders since 2016 as part of a government-backed bail out which started in 2013 when KDB gave $5 billion to financially struggling Hyundai Merchant Marine. Doubts over finances Questions over the Pan Ocean-JKL venture’s financial resources arose soon after it was selected by KDB and KOBC on Dec. 18 over a rival bid by the Dongwon Group, a seafood-focused conglomerate. Harim said the share purchase would be financed through stock and bond sales and a rights issue involving shares in Pan Ocean. But the financing plan drew the ire of HMM’s seafarer and staff unions, which organized meetings with government officials and minority shareholders while also threatening to strike over the proposed sale to the Pan Ocean group. The seafarers’ union in January said Harim had yet to clarify how it would raise the money for the acquisition. Welcoming the decision to scrap the share sale, the seafarers’ union said it supports moves to “come up with a constructive alternative” to secure HMM’s future. KDB and KOBC indicated they are unlikely to pursue a second share sale for the time being given the current market conditions in the container shipping industry. HMM did not comment on the sale process apart from confirming it was off, instead saying it was now focused on future performance. “HMM will make great efforts to enhance its business capability to respond to the ever-changing market environment and will continue to secure a solid foundation for future growth,” a spokesperson for the carrier told the Journal of Commerce on Wednesday. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines

Container Shipping News

Maritime

HMM’s $4.8 billion share sale is scrapped over management control issue

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As contract tendering season on the European trades gets underway, carriers are stepping up capacity management efforts to elevate spot rates and better match supply with demand.</div>

As contract tendering season on the European trades gets underway, carriers are stepping up capacity management efforts to elevate spot rates and better match supply with demand.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The spot market from Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean is holding on to rate gains made through a series of carrier price increases that have been levied on the trade lanes every two weeks since the beginning of October. With tendering season for long-term rates on the European trades getting underway, the higher prices are being supported by significant capacity withdrawals in the form of blank sailings. ”We have seen many times before that successfully implemented rate increases in Q4 have stuck around until year end, but the impact it has had on contract negotiations is not uniform,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. He said the short-term market may favor carriers now, but in the coming contract talks there was a 50:50 chance that the long-term rates would also be elevated. ”This time around, Xeneta doesn’t expect to see a very strong impact,” Sand added. “The global market conditions are quite simply too weak.” On Asia-North Europe, the four-week weekly capacity rolling average of 320,000 TEUs in the first half of September fell to 266,300 TEUs in the first week of November, a drop of 16.8%, Xeneta data shows. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b07fd015-2b73-4e9d-a61e-e44aaa45715e"></dynamic-object></div>In October, carriers blanked sailings that removed 230,000 TEUs of capacity from the Asia–North Europe trade lane, around 23% of the total capacity, according to Xeneta. November blanks announced so far are already at 110,000 TEUs, with more canceled sailings expected. So far, the capacity management approach pushed by carriers is paying off. Rates increased for the fifth consecutive week as carriers implemented another freight-all-kinds (FAK) price hike this week. The Asia–North Europe spot rate is currently at $2,075 per FEU, up $775 since the beginning of October, while the Asia–Mediterranean rate of $2,550/FEU is up $950 compared to Oct. 1, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <h3>Signs of rising demand </h3>There are also signs of a pickup in demand through the fourth quarter as shippers build inventories ahead of a late Chinese New Year that will fall in mid-February. “We are hearing that Gemini (Cooperation) is filling all its ships and a lot of space out of Asia is sold out already,” said Antonios Rigalos, managing partner of shipper network ShiftX, at the organization’s BCO conference in Hamburg this week. James Huang, head of Unitrans Agency in Shanghai, said at the Hamburg event that the overall Asia–Europe market is “reasonably strong,” and he expected that situation to prevail ahead of Chinese New Year. “Rates will be under pressure because of the capacity coming into the market but carriers are canceling sailings to hold up rates,” Huang said. Reports of recent strong volume are not yet backed up by data for October. The latest volume numbers from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) showed that demand on Asia-Europe from January through September was up 9.8% year over year. Still, even as carriers try to match supply with demand, they are also contending with continued fleet growth and steadily rising overcapacity. Jan Tiedemann, senior analyst at Alphaliner, said there have been three years of record ship deliveries that have seen net growth in the fleet of more than 2 million TEUs with scrapping virtually non-existent over the past five years. “Next year there will be a slowdown but then in 2027 and 2028 we will once again have record deliveries,” Tiedemann told the Hamburg BCO conference. “It's going crazy again, and all these ships ordered this year will create a second [delivery] wave in 2028 and 2029.” The orderbook is currently above 10 million TEUs in capacity, which represents almost a third of the in-service fleet, according to Alphaliner. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The spot market from Asia to North Europe and the Mediterranean is holding on to rate gains made through a series of carrier price increases that have been levied on the trade lanes every two weeks since the beginning of October. With tendering season for long-term rates on the European trades getting underway, the higher prices are being supported by significant capacity withdrawals in the form of blank sailings. ”We have seen many times before that successfully implemented rate increases in Q4 have stuck around until year end, but the impact it has had on contract negotiations is not uniform,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. He said the short-term market may favor carriers now, but in the coming contract talks there was a 50:50 chance that the long-term rates would also be elevated. ”This time around, Xeneta doesn’t expect to see a very strong impact,” Sand added. “The global market conditions are quite simply too weak.” On Asia-North Europe, the four-week weekly capacity rolling average of 320,000 TEUs in the first half of September fell to 266,300 TEUs in the first week of November, a drop of 16.8%, Xeneta data shows. In October, carriers blanked sailings that removed 230,000 TEUs of capacity from the Asia–North Europe trade lane, around 23% of the total capacity, according to Xeneta. November blanks announced so far are already at 110,000 TEUs, with more canceled sailings expected. So far, the capacity management approach pushed by carriers is paying off. Rates increased for the fifth consecutive week as carriers implemented another freight-all-kinds (FAK) price hike this week. The Asia–North Europe spot rate is currently at $2,075 per FEU, up $775 since the beginning of October, while the Asia–Mediterranean rate of $2,550/FEU is up $950 compared to Oct. 1, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Signs of rising demand There are also signs of a pickup in demand through the fourth quarter as shippers build inventories ahead of a late Chinese New Year that will fall in mid-February. “We are hearing that Gemini (Cooperation) is filling all its ships and a lot of space out of Asia is sold out already,” said Antonios Rigalos, managing partner of shipper network ShiftX, at the organization’s BCO conference in Hamburg this week. James Huang, head of Unitrans Agency in Shanghai, said at the Hamburg event that the overall Asia–Europe market is “reasonably strong,” and he expected that situation to prevail ahead of Chinese New Year. “Rates will be under pressure because of the capacity coming into the market but carriers are canceling sailings to hold up rates,” Huang said. Reports of recent strong volume are not yet backed up by data for October. The latest volume numbers from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) showed that demand on Asia-Europe from January through September was up 9.8% year over year. Still, even as carriers try to match supply with demand, they are also contending with continued fleet growth and steadily rising overcapacity. Jan Tiedemann, senior analyst at Alphaliner, said there have been three years of record ship deliveries that have seen net growth in the fleet of more than 2 million TEUs with scrapping virtually non-existent over the past five years. “Next year there will be a slowdown but then in 2027 and 2028 we will once again have record deliveries,” Tiedemann told the Hamburg BCO conference. “It's going crazy again, and all these ships ordered this year will create a second [delivery] wave in 2028 and 2029.” The orderbook is currently above 10 million TEUs in capacity, which represents almost a third of the in-service fleet, according to Alphaliner. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

Capacity cuts support series of rate hikes on Asia-Europe ocean trade

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The comments from Joe Hinrichs follow a report that CSX’s board of directors was displeased that UP allegedly contacted Hinrichs first about a potential UP-CSX combination and only turned to Norfolk Southern after receiving a tepid response. </div>

The comments from Joe Hinrichs follow a report that CSX’s board of directors was displeased that UP allegedly contacted Hinrichs first about a potential UP-CSX combination and only turned to Norfolk Southern after receiving a tepid response.

<div class="phx-topic">Former CSX CEO Joe Hinrichs, who was ousted from the company in late September, has repudiated a published report claiming that Union Pacific Railroad reached out to him earlier this year on a possible acquisition before UP hooked up with Norfolk Southern Railway. Hinrichs’ remarks, which came in response <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ariashe_i-had-a-great-time-with-jim-vena-eric-gehringer-activity-7394791477358379008-F3Km/?utm_source=share&amp;utm_medium=member_desktop&amp;rcm=ACoAAALKEPMBiWV_z6vaO3hg8YwYfGScgW-oeOI">to a LinkedIn post Thursday by a Journal of Commerce editor</a>, follow an Oct. 21 report in <a href="https://www.semafor.com/article/10/21/2025/the-inside-story-of-csxs-ceo-shakeup">online news publication Semafor</a> stating that CSX’s board of directors was displeased that UP CEO Jim Vena allegedly contacted Hinrichs first about a potential UP-CSX combination and only turned to Norfolk Southern after receiving a tepid response from Hinrichs. But Hinrichs denied that version of events via a response to the LinkedIn post. “Jim Vena never reached out to me regarding UP-CSX,” Hinrichs wrote. “Jim and I discussed this very subject (why UP never talked to CSX) after the UP-NS announcement that they were in ‘advanced talks’ as I asked him why they did not. I will keep that conversation private.” CSX announced Hinrich’s dismissal on Sept. 28, just over a month after an activist investor called for him to step down amid competitive pressures brought on by the UP-NS deal, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-confirms-in-advanced-discussions-on-deal-with-norfolk-southern-6049046">which was unveiled in late July</a>. In an <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/100885/000119312525204376/d908896ds4.htm">S-4 filing</a> made with the US Securities and Exchange Commission two weeks prior to Hinrich’s dismissal, UP stated that Vena contacted Hinrichs only after UP was in advanced talks with Norfolk Southern. Hinrichs said the SEC filing accurately captures the chain of events. <h3>No clarity at UP media event </h3>The Journal of Commerce, during a UP-sponsored media event in Chicago on Wednesday, asked Vena to comment on the Semafor report and to clarify which CEO he approached first for a potential merger: Hinrichs at CSX or Norfolk Southern’s Mark George. Vena declined to provide specifics. “We looked at everybody. We looked at the Canadian railroads and we looked at the Eastern railroads,” Vena responded. “I wasn’t in the boardroom at CSX. I have no idea what happened there.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Former CSX CEO Joe Hinrichs, who was ousted from the company in late September, has repudiated a published report claiming that Union Pacific Railroad reached out to him earlier this year on a possible acquisition before UP hooked up with Norfolk Southern Railway. Hinrichs’ remarks, which came in response to a LinkedIn post Thursday by a Journal of Commerce editor , follow an Oct. 21 report in online news publication Semafor stating that CSX’s board of directors was displeased that UP CEO Jim Vena allegedly contacted Hinrichs first about a potential UP-CSX combination and only turned to Norfolk Southern after receiving a tepid response from Hinrichs. But Hinrichs denied that version of events via a response to the LinkedIn post. “Jim Vena never reached out to me regarding UP-CSX,” Hinrichs wrote. “Jim and I discussed this very subject (why UP never talked to CSX) after the UP-NS announcement that they were in ‘advanced talks’ as I asked him why they did not. I will keep that conversation private.” CSX announced Hinrich’s dismissal on Sept. 28, just over a month after an activist investor called for him to step down amid competitive pressures brought on by the UP-NS deal, which was unveiled in late July . In an S-4 filing made with the US Securities and Exchange Commission two weeks prior to Hinrich’s dismissal, UP stated that Vena contacted Hinrichs only after UP was in advanced talks with Norfolk Southern. Hinrichs said the SEC filing accurately captures the chain of events. No clarity at UP media event The Journal of Commerce, during a UP-sponsored media event in Chicago on Wednesday, asked Vena to comment on the Semafor report and to clarify which CEO he approached first for a potential merger: Hinrichs at CSX or Norfolk Southern’s Mark George. Vena declined to provide specifics. “We looked at everybody. We looked at the Canadian railroads and we looked at the Eastern railroads,” Vena responded. “I wasn’t in the boardroom at CSX. I have no idea what happened there.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

Former CSX CEO denies that UP came to him first on potential merger

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Remarks from the group’s CFO came as the carrier’s third-quarter financials showed year-over-year declines.</div>

Remarks from the group’s CFO came as the carrier’s third-quarter financials showed year-over-year declines.

<div class="phx-topic">Container shipping is facing a weaker 2026 amid likely lackluster demand, overcapacity and a possible shift of mainline carriers back to the Red Sea and Suez Canal, a top CMA CGM executive said Friday. “We see uncertainty for the coming quarters,” Ramon Fernandez, CMA CGM Group’s chief financial officer, said during an online briefing. “We anticipate a slowdown in global trade and freight rates may continue to normalize.” His remarks coincided with the carrier’s third-quarter financial results, which saw year-over-year declines. While CMA CGM’s shipping division saw a year-over-year decline in the quarter, Fernandez said it was an improvement compared with the second quarter, which was affected by the US-China trade and tariff spat. Fernandez said the carrier’s fourth quarter will not be as strong as the third quarter, even though freight rates have rebounded since China’s Golden Week holidays in early October. Despite concerns about overcapacity, Fernandez said CMA CGM needs new ships to maintain trade growth while investing in dual-fuel vessels to cut emissions. “There is no alternative,” he said. “We need to replace older vessels.” He did not immediately comment on reports that the world’s third-largest carrier signed a deal this week for up to 10 22,000-TEU liquefied natural gas (LNG) dual-fuel ships with China’s Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co., even though the shipyard confirmed the order. But he said CMA CGM would operate more than 200 dual-fuel ships by 2029, including 160 owned vessels. <h3>French Navy escorting CMA CGM ships in Red Sea </h3>On Red Sea transits, Fernandez confirmed the French Navy is escorting Marseille-based CMA CGM’s ships as part of the security conditions necessary for transiting the Red Sea and Suez Canal while avoiding attacks from Houthi militants operating from Yemen. CMA CGM <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-alliance-megaships-test-red-sea-waters-on-return-to-asia-6105787">cautiously dipped its propeller back into Red Sea transits</a> earlier this month when the 17,859-TEU CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin became the first ultra‑large container ship to pass through the Red Sea in nearly two years. Sister ship CMA CGM Zheng He is currently transiting the Suez and Red Sea region. Both ships are operating eastbound legs of the carrier’s French Asia Line 1 service, also known as the Ocean Alliance’s NEU4 service. “If the [security] situation gets better, then we will adapt to this environment,” Fernandez said. He would not comment on how the carrier’s partners in the Ocean Alliance, who comprise Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine, view the possibility of Red Sea transits, only saying: “They make their own choices.” A significant shift of vessels back to transiting the Suez Canal and Red Sea would result in a surge of capacity, depressing freight rates on East-West trades as carriers switched back from longer voyages around southern Africa. Container ship diversions away from the Red Sea began in late 2023 following the first Houthi attacks soon after the start of the Israel-Hamas war, soaking up between 8% and 12% of global tonnage — depending on varying estimates from analysts and carriers — due to the longer transits. Peter Sand, chief analyst at online benchmarking platform Xeneta, said global freight rates are already forecast to fall by up to 25% next year even without a return to Red Sea transits. Speculation that carriers will return to the shorter Suez Canal route has increased since Houthi rebels in Yemen announced a ceasefire on shipping last week, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/houthi-pause-on-shipping-attacks-lowers-tensions-but-risk-remains-6114790">but risks remain</a>. <h3>Terminal deals </h3>Fernandez, meanwhile, told the briefing that CMA CGM would continue to develop its terminal and logistics businesses. On Thursday, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-revives-talks-for-ownership-stake-in-hamburg-terminal-alphaliner-6105199">the carrier confirmed the signing of a term sheet to take a 20% stake in Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg (CTH)</a>, a deal it expected to complete in the first half of next year. CTH has a current capacity of 4 million TEUs, but a planned expansion project will add 3,500 feet of quay wall and 94 acres of yard space to increase capacity to 6 million TEUs. CMA CGM will also acquire Freightliner UK Intermodal Logistics, one of Britain’s rail operators, in a transaction expected to be finalized in early 2026 subject to regulatory approvals. CEVA Logistics has also completed the acquisition of Borusan Lojistik, a major logistics player in Turkey. Fernandez’s comments came after the shipping, logistics, air cargo and media group reported Friday a 73% drop in third-quarter net income to $749 million, down from $2.7 billion in the prior year. Revenue fell 11% to $14 billion. Shipping saw a 17% drop in third-quarter revenue to $9 billion against $10.8 billion a year earlier. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 49% to $2.2 billion from the third quarter of 2024. Liftings rose 2.3% to 6.2 million TEUs year over year as CMA CGM focused on the “development of its inter-regional and south-south trades,” Fernandez said, without giving further details. Third-quarter revenue from the logistics division slipped 5% to $4.8 billion, while EBITDA fell 7% to $459 million. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Container shipping is facing a weaker 2026 amid likely lackluster demand, overcapacity and a possible shift of mainline carriers back to the Red Sea and Suez Canal, a top CMA CGM executive said Friday. “We see uncertainty for the coming quarters,” Ramon Fernandez, CMA CGM Group’s chief financial officer, said during an online briefing. “We anticipate a slowdown in global trade and freight rates may continue to normalize.” His remarks coincided with the carrier’s third-quarter financial results, which saw year-over-year declines. While CMA CGM’s shipping division saw a year-over-year decline in the quarter, Fernandez said it was an improvement compared with the second quarter, which was affected by the US-China trade and tariff spat. Fernandez said the carrier’s fourth quarter will not be as strong as the third quarter, even though freight rates have rebounded since China’s Golden Week holidays in early October. Despite concerns about overcapacity, Fernandez said CMA CGM needs new ships to maintain trade growth while investing in dual-fuel vessels to cut emissions. “There is no alternative,” he said. “We need to replace older vessels.” He did not immediately comment on reports that the world’s third-largest carrier signed a deal this week for up to 10 22,000-TEU liquefied natural gas (LNG) dual-fuel ships with China’s Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co., even though the shipyard confirmed the order. But he said CMA CGM would operate more than 200 dual-fuel ships by 2029, including 160 owned vessels. French Navy escorting CMA CGM ships in Red Sea On Red Sea transits, Fernandez confirmed the French Navy is escorting Marseille-based CMA CGM’s ships as part of the security conditions necessary for transiting the Red Sea and Suez Canal while avoiding attacks from Houthi militants operating from Yemen. CMA CGM cautiously dipped its propeller back into Red Sea transits earlier this month when the 17,859-TEU CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin became the first ultra‑large container ship to pass through the Red Sea in nearly two years. Sister ship CMA CGM Zheng He is currently transiting the Suez and Red Sea region. Both ships are operating eastbound legs of the carrier’s French Asia Line 1 service, also known as the Ocean Alliance’s NEU4 service. “If the [security] situation gets better, then we will adapt to this environment,” Fernandez said. He would not comment on how the carrier’s partners in the Ocean Alliance, who comprise Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine, view the possibility of Red Sea transits, only saying: “They make their own choices.” A significant shift of vessels back to transiting the Suez Canal and Red Sea would result in a surge of capacity, depressing freight rates on East-West trades as carriers switched back from longer voyages around southern Africa. Container ship diversions away from the Red Sea began in late 2023 following the first Houthi attacks soon after the start of the Israel-Hamas war, soaking up between 8% and 12% of global tonnage — depending on varying estimates from analysts and carriers — due to the longer transits. Peter Sand, chief analyst at online benchmarking platform Xeneta, said global freight rates are already forecast to fall by up to 25% next year even without a return to Red Sea transits. Speculation that carriers will return to the shorter Suez Canal route has increased since Houthi rebels in Yemen announced a ceasefire on shipping last week, but risks remain . Terminal deals Fernandez, meanwhile, told the briefing that CMA CGM would continue to develop its terminal and logistics businesses. On Thursday, the carrier confirmed the signing of a term sheet to take a 20% stake in Eurogate Container Terminal Hamburg (CTH) , a deal it expected to complete in the first half of next year. CTH has a current capacity of 4 million TEUs, but a planned expansion project will add 3,500 feet of quay wall and 94 acres of yard space to increase capacity to 6 million TEUs. CMA CGM will also acquire Freightliner UK Intermodal Logistics, one of Britain’s rail operators, in a transaction expected to be finalized in early 2026 subject to regulatory approvals. CEVA Logistics has also completed the acquisition of Borusan Lojistik, a major logistics player in Turkey. Fernandez’s comments came after the shipping, logistics, air cargo and media group reported Friday a 73% drop in third-quarter net income to $749 million, down from $2.7 billion in the prior year. Revenue fell 11% to $14 billion. Shipping saw a 17% drop in third-quarter revenue to $9 billion against $10.8 billion a year earlier. Earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) fell 49% to $2.2 billion from the third quarter of 2024. Liftings rose 2.3% to 6.2 million TEUs year over year as CMA CGM focused on the “development of its inter-regional and south-south trades,” Fernandez said, without giving further details. Third-quarter revenue from the logistics division slipped 5% to $4.8 billion, while EBITDA fell 7% to $459 million. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

Marine terminals

CMA CGM expects softer 2026 due to trade, rate and Red Sea uncertainties

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Intermodal needs to put itself in a position where it can perform against trucking through all the stages of the economic cycle, writes analyst Larry Gross. </div>

Intermodal needs to put itself in a position where it can perform against trucking through all the stages of the economic cycle, writes analyst Larry Gross.

<div class="phx-topic">Intermodal performance in recent years has largely been a function of international, or inland point intermodal (IPI), volume. Robust imports coupled with East Coast labor issues and then tariff frontloading have combined to provide a powerful boost to the volume of ISO containers moving via intermodal. However, domestic intermodal (53-foot domestic containers) has not seen the same strength. Further, the signs all point toward a slowdown for international intermodal. Where do things go from here? <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6116458_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The railroads (and many analysts who follow the industry) point to the prolonged “trucking recession,” now at three years and counting. Capacity that was added to the truckload sector has been slow to exit, resulting in a prolonged period of downward rate pressure. The theory is that intermodal currently suffers from adverse market conditions, and once things return to “normal,” intermodal will once again thrive. The data, however, indicates that there is a more fundamental problem, one that has been in place for at least 10 years. The accompanying chart compares US intermodal performance with three benchmarks — US GDP, US long-haul truckload and US import TEUs. In each case, the year 2015 is set at an index level of 100, and then the four-quarter moving average is tracked right up through the 2025 third quarter (where available). The results are revealing. From 2015 through the second quarter of 2025 (numbers for the third quarter are not yet available due to the US government shutdown), US real GDP increased 25%. Long-haul truckload did not keep pace, rising only 21% through the third quarter. There are likely several reasons for the undershoot. First and foremost has been growth in the service sector, which has accounted for an increasing proportion of GDP. Growth in services does not correspond to growth in freight demand. Growth in the goods-producing sectors of the GDP has been lower than the headline number. Secondly, average truck length of haul has been dropping, pulling down long-haul growth. In this case, we define long-haul as intermodal-competitive dry van and reefer truckloads moving 500 miles or more. Thirdly, shippers are getting better at loading trailers. Improved packaging has helped increase the average amount of product per truckload. On the other hand, growth in import TEUs has been outstanding, up 42% in the third quarter of 2025 versus 2015. The chart vividly illustrates the roller-coaster performance that has been recently underway. It also shows just how extraordinary the recent performance has been, indicating why a correction to bring things back down closer to the trend seems likely. <h3>‘Huge’ IPI shortfall vs. benchmarks </h3>Now, let’s compare these benchmarks with intermodal’s performance. Overall intermodal activity has increased only 7% over the past 10 years. International/IPI most recently stood at a 5% gain, while domestic was up 9%. Both pale in comparison with the relevant benchmarks. The IPI shortfall is huge, but probably most of it was beyond intermodal’s control. Since 2015, some 77% of the growth in import TEUs occurred on the East and Gulf coasts, where volume has more than doubled. Meanwhile, West Coast import TEUs grew only 25%. This is a substantial IPI headwind, as intermodal share off the West Coast is somewhere in the 60% to 70% range, while in the East, I estimate intermodal share to perhaps be no more than 15%. Also holding back IPI volume was the growth in transloading in the West. I estimate that transloads into domestic containers now account for about 60% of the import TEUs into the southwest ports that emerge from the region on rail. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d3796a3f-c66c-457d-a6a1-422f5f07b833"></dynamic-object></div>Maybe intermodal can’t control its IPI destiny, but the same isn’t true with domestic. Even with the aforementioned transloading boost, domestic intermodal growth has not matched truckload since 2018 at the height of the electronic logging device (ELD) capacity crunch. Subsequently, volume tanked as the truckload market normalized and precision scheduled railroading (PSR) retrenchment encouraged additional volume to head back to the highway. Thereafter, domestic intermodal once again got fairly close in 2021 during the early days of the post-pandemic surge, before congestion and service disruptions took their toll. The underperformance is clear, and the result has been loss of share versus truck. Domestic intermodal has been stuck at about a 6% share for the past three years, down from about 6.9% 10 years ago. Now, the market situation may be changing a bit in favor of intermodal. I don’t expect to see a big improvement in demand for truckload transportation. However, the Trump administration’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/battle-over-non-domiciled-cdls-deepens-in-california-6115918">multi-pronged pressure on immigrant truck drivers</a> holds the potential to sideline a significant percentage of the long-haul driver population, putting pressure on the supply side of the equation. This will undoubtedly cause trucking rates to rise, simply because they are already at rock bottom and the carriers cannot absorb the extra cost of higher driver wages while holding rates steady. There is even the potential for a capacity shortfall. This will depend primarily on how fast the reduction takes place. A capacity crunch will result if the pace of departures exceeds the industry’s ability to backfill with new drivers. The ELD crunch was an example of this phenomenon. It took some time for the industry’s recruiting efforts to catch up. But eventually, they did. The same thing could happen this time around. When and if the trucking rates go up, the intermodal sector will have a choice — follow the trucking rates upward and improve margins, or hold rates steady, letting the differential between truck and intermodal rates widen, and take the benefit in the form of higher volume and improved market share. However, even if the competitive environment does improve, it would be a mistake to assume that the intermodal competitiveness problem is solved. The industry has a long-term growth problem, and the solution is not to wait for the “goldilocks” market. Intermodal needs to put itself in a position where it can perform against truck through all the stages of the economic cycle. What needs to happen will be a topic for another column. Larry Gross is president and founder of Gross Transportation Consulting. Contact him at <a href="mailto:lawrencejgross@gmail.com">lawrencejgross@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Intermodal performance in recent years has largely been a function of international, or inland point intermodal (IPI), volume. Robust imports coupled with East Coast labor issues and then tariff frontloading have combined to provide a powerful boost to the volume of ISO containers moving via intermodal. However, domestic intermodal (53-foot domestic containers) has not seen the same strength. Further, the signs all point toward a slowdown for international intermodal. Where do things go from here? The railroads (and many analysts who follow the industry) point to the prolonged “trucking recession,” now at three years and counting. Capacity that was added to the truckload sector has been slow to exit, resulting in a prolonged period of downward rate pressure. The theory is that intermodal currently suffers from adverse market conditions, and once things return to “normal,” intermodal will once again thrive. The data, however, indicates that there is a more fundamental problem, one that has been in place for at least 10 years. The accompanying chart compares US intermodal performance with three benchmarks — US GDP, US long-haul truckload and US import TEUs. In each case, the year 2015 is set at an index level of 100, and then the four-quarter moving average is tracked right up through the 2025 third quarter (where available). The results are revealing. From 2015 through the second quarter of 2025 (numbers for the third quarter are not yet available due to the US government shutdown), US real GDP increased 25%. Long-haul truckload did not keep pace, rising only 21% through the third quarter. There are likely several reasons for the undershoot. First and foremost has been growth in the service sector, which has accounted for an increasing proportion of GDP. Growth in services does not correspond to growth in freight demand. Growth in the goods-producing sectors of the GDP has been lower than the headline number. Secondly, average truck length of haul has been dropping, pulling down long-haul growth. In this case, we define long-haul as intermodal-competitive dry van and reefer truckloads moving 500 miles or more. Thirdly, shippers are getting better at loading trailers. Improved packaging has helped increase the average amount of product per truckload. On the other hand, growth in import TEUs has been outstanding, up 42% in the third quarter of 2025 versus 2015. The chart vividly illustrates the roller-coaster performance that has been recently underway. It also shows just how extraordinary the recent performance has been, indicating why a correction to bring things back down closer to the trend seems likely. ‘Huge’ IPI shortfall vs. benchmarks Now, let’s compare these benchmarks with intermodal’s performance. Overall intermodal activity has increased only 7% over the past 10 years. International/IPI most recently stood at a 5% gain, while domestic was up 9%. Both pale in comparison with the relevant benchmarks. The IPI shortfall is huge, but probably most of it was beyond intermodal’s control. Since 2015, some 77% of the growth in import TEUs occurred on the East and Gulf coasts, where volume has more than doubled. Meanwhile, West Coast import TEUs grew only 25%. This is a substantial IPI headwind, as intermodal share off the West Coast is somewhere in the 60% to 70% range, while in the East, I estimate intermodal share to perhaps be no more than 15%. Also holding back IPI volume was the growth in transloading in the West. I estimate that transloads into domestic containers now account for about 60% of the import TEUs into the southwest ports that emerge from the region on rail. Maybe intermodal can’t control its IPI destiny, but the same isn’t true with domestic. Even with the aforementioned transloading boost, domestic intermodal growth has not matched truckload since 2018 at the height of the electronic logging device (ELD) capacity crunch. Subsequently, volume tanked as the truckload market normalized and precision scheduled railroading (PSR) retrenchment encouraged additional volume to head back to the highway. Thereafter, domestic intermodal once again got fairly close in 2021 during the early days of the post-pandemic surge, before congestion and service disruptions took their toll. The underperformance is clear, and the result has been loss of share versus truck. Domestic intermodal has been stuck at about a 6% share for the past three years, down from about 6.9% 10 years ago. Now, the market situation may be changing a bit in favor of intermodal. I don’t expect to see a big improvement in demand for truckload transportation. However, the Trump administration’s multi-pronged pressure on immigrant truck drivers holds the potential to sideline a significant percentage of the long-haul driver population, putting pressure on the supply side of the equation. This will undoubtedly cause trucking rates to rise, simply because they are already at rock bottom and the carriers cannot absorb the extra cost of higher driver wages while holding rates steady. There is even the potential for a capacity shortfall. This will depend primarily on how fast the reduction takes place. A capacity crunch will result if the pace of departures exceeds the industry’s ability to backfill with new drivers. The ELD crunch was an example of this phenomenon. It took some time for the industry’s recruiting efforts to catch up. But eventually, they did. The same thing could happen this time around. When and if the trucking rates go up, the intermodal sector will have a choice — follow the trucking rates upward and improve margins, or hold rates steady, letting the differential between truck and intermodal rates widen, and take the benefit in the form of higher volume and improved market share. However, even if the competitive environment does improve, it would be a mistake to assume that the intermodal competitiveness problem is solved. The industry has a long-term growth problem, and the solution is not to wait for the “goldilocks” market. Intermodal needs to put itself in a position where it can perform against truck through all the stages of the economic cycle. What needs to happen will be a topic for another column. Larry Gross is president and founder of Gross Transportation Consulting. Contact him at lawrencejgross@gmail.com .

Truckload

Data shows US intermodal has a long-term growth problem

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The new details clarify the role the two railroads will play in Schneider’s just-launched Fast Track product, which comes with a 95% on-time guarantee. </div>

The new details clarify the role the two railroads will play in Schneider’s just-launched Fast Track product, which comes with a 95% on-time guarantee.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and CSX Transportation will provide priority loading on trains as part of Schneider National’s new Fast Track product, a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/schneider-launches-premium-intermodal-service-with-95-on-time-guarantee-6112323">premium intermodal service</a> introduced earlier this week that comes with a 95% on-time guarantee for shippers. Both railroads will also provide lift services for so-called “hot loads” if a train is running behind schedule, requiring a transfer to a Schneider truck. The priority agreement does not extend to unloading at destination terminals. In most cases, shippers using Fast Track would pay more compared with standard intermodal service, but less than a truckload move. The new details clarify the role the two railroads will play in Schneider’s 95% on-time guarantee. UP spoke about its responsibilities during a media event on Wednesday in Chicago, while an industry source confirmed to the Journal of Commerce that CSX’s arrangement with Schneider is identical. “Schneider will get an expedited code from us, which allows them to get in our terminals earlier, or a little later, but it guarantees them a spot on the train,” Kenny Rocker, UP’s executive vice president of sales, said during the company-sponsored media event. “There’s no service guarantee from UP specifically, it’s coming from the private-asset provider, in this case Schneider.” Schneider Fast Track is targeting companies that have shied away from intermodal rail because of the lack of reliable, consistent service. Many of them are in the automotive and retail sectors, which requires high-precision delivery times, or the companies risk losing sales. “It’s a great product,” UP CEO Jim Vena said Wednesday when asked about Fast Track. “I think more companies will be looking at [Schneider’s Fast Track] to see what markets they service and what they can do for their customers.” One exception to Schneider’s priority status is parcel traffic. UPS and FedEx have clauses in their contracts requiring UP to put their loads on the assigned train or face penalties. Vena said the parcel carriers pay higher rates in exchange for that guarantee. “The parcels can come 15 minutes before train departure, deliver the load, and we have to put it on the train, but they pay for it,” Vena said, explaining that Schneider Fast Track will get a priority level just below the parcel carriers. Unlike on Canadian Pacific Kansas City’s Midwest Mexico Express, where Schneider is the primary customer, the intermodal carrier shares slots on trains in the US with chief competitors J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Hub Group. It also must compete for space with retailer Amazon, which owns more than 22,000 containers, and the parcel carriers. “We’ll have notifications ahead of time [of how many Fast Track loads are booked] so we can plan the train,” said Eric Gehringer, UP’s chief operating officer. “If we’re halfway through loading the train and we know there are 13 of these loads coming in, we can leave room.” <h3>Fast Track shows UP, CSX will maintain relationship </h3>Schneider’s Fast Track also undercuts claims that UP would stop working with CSX if regulators approve its proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway. UP has repeatedly said nothing will change with CSX, including its commitment to Schneider and to the rail-owned containers labeled “UMAX” used by intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). BNSF Railway, which opposes the UP-NS transaction, has said the merger would result in the elimination of 300 intermodal lanes, a figure that includes every interchange between UP and CSX and between BNSF and Norfolk Southern. BNSF CEO Katie Farmer appeared to soften her earlier concerns in a statement issued Wednesday, while also reminding shippers and regulators of UP’s own warnings about past rail mergers. “I’m sure the nation’s rail customers are relieved that UP is committing to keep all current intermodal lanes open if their merger with NS is approved,” Farmer said. But she also pointed to UP’s filings during the US Surface Transportation Board’s review of the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger in 2023, in which UP argued that consolidation could harm service on interline moves — i.e. containers handled by two railroads. “CPKC would have the ability to implement such anticompetitive strategies by raising rates shippers must pay for interline service or degrading the quality of service shippers receive when using interline service,” UP wrote at the time. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and CSX Transportation will provide priority loading on trains as part of Schneider National’s new Fast Track product, a premium intermodal service introduced earlier this week that comes with a 95% on-time guarantee for shippers. Both railroads will also provide lift services for so-called “hot loads” if a train is running behind schedule, requiring a transfer to a Schneider truck. The priority agreement does not extend to unloading at destination terminals. In most cases, shippers using Fast Track would pay more compared with standard intermodal service, but less than a truckload move. The new details clarify the role the two railroads will play in Schneider’s 95% on-time guarantee. UP spoke about its responsibilities during a media event on Wednesday in Chicago, while an industry source confirmed to the Journal of Commerce that CSX’s arrangement with Schneider is identical. “Schneider will get an expedited code from us, which allows them to get in our terminals earlier, or a little later, but it guarantees them a spot on the train,” Kenny Rocker, UP’s executive vice president of sales, said during the company-sponsored media event. “There’s no service guarantee from UP specifically, it’s coming from the private-asset provider, in this case Schneider.” Schneider Fast Track is targeting companies that have shied away from intermodal rail because of the lack of reliable, consistent service. Many of them are in the automotive and retail sectors, which requires high-precision delivery times, or the companies risk losing sales. “It’s a great product,” UP CEO Jim Vena said Wednesday when asked about Fast Track. “I think more companies will be looking at [Schneider’s Fast Track] to see what markets they service and what they can do for their customers.” One exception to Schneider’s priority status is parcel traffic. UPS and FedEx have clauses in their contracts requiring UP to put their loads on the assigned train or face penalties. Vena said the parcel carriers pay higher rates in exchange for that guarantee. “The parcels can come 15 minutes before train departure, deliver the load, and we have to put it on the train, but they pay for it,” Vena said, explaining that Schneider Fast Track will get a priority level just below the parcel carriers. Unlike on Canadian Pacific Kansas City’s Midwest Mexico Express, where Schneider is the primary customer, the intermodal carrier shares slots on trains in the US with chief competitors J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Hub Group. It also must compete for space with retailer Amazon, which owns more than 22,000 containers, and the parcel carriers. “We’ll have notifications ahead of time [of how many Fast Track loads are booked] so we can plan the train,” said Eric Gehringer, UP’s chief operating officer. “If we’re halfway through loading the train and we know there are 13 of these loads coming in, we can leave room.” Fast Track shows UP, CSX will maintain relationship Schneider’s Fast Track also undercuts claims that UP would stop working with CSX if regulators approve its proposed $85 billion acquisition of Norfolk Southern Railway. UP has repeatedly said nothing will change with CSX, including its commitment to Schneider and to the rail-owned containers labeled “UMAX” used by intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). BNSF Railway, which opposes the UP-NS transaction, has said the merger would result in the elimination of 300 intermodal lanes, a figure that includes every interchange between UP and CSX and between BNSF and Norfolk Southern. BNSF CEO Katie Farmer appeared to soften her earlier concerns in a statement issued Wednesday, while also reminding shippers and regulators of UP’s own warnings about past rail mergers. “I’m sure the nation’s rail customers are relieved that UP is committing to keep all current intermodal lanes open if their merger with NS is approved,” Farmer said. But she also pointed to UP’s filings during the US Surface Transportation Board’s review of the Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger in 2023, in which UP argued that consolidation could harm service on interline moves — i.e. containers handled by two railroads. “CPKC would have the ability to implement such anticompetitive strategies by raising rates shippers must pay for interline service or degrading the quality of service shippers receive when using interline service,” UP wrote at the time. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

UP, CSX give priority loading to Schneider’s new intermodal service

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code FSW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED

Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

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 FSW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

In 1995, we began operations with a clear vision: to grow alongside Mexico and connect the world through our terminals. Our priority has always been to deliver excellence in service, foster economic development, and strengthen our communities. We firmly believe that progress is not only measured in tons of cargo moved, but in the opportunities we create. _______________________________________________________________ This year marks a significant milestone: SSA Marine Mexico celebrates 30 years of presence in the country, having established itself from day one as the leading port operator nationwide. Over the past three decades, we have built a legacy of reliability, innovation, and commitment to Mexico’s growth. Our journey has been defined by continuous evolution and a steadfast dedication to our mission. SSA Marine México currently operates in six of the country’s most important ports: Cozumel, Lazaro Cardenas, Manzanillo, Progreso, Tuxpan, and Veracruz. Additionally, we have signed a concession to operate a new multipurpose terminal in Guaymas, Sonora, expanding our footprint to the north of the country. We serve a wide range of segments including containers, general cargo, automobiles, cruise ships, hydrocarbons, and asphalt. As part of this ongoing commitment, SSA Marine Mexico continues to strengthen its infrastructure and capabilities. International trade remains a key driver of global economic growth, and we are proud to support this momentum. Through our continuous improvement strategy, we invest in cutting-edge technology and equipment to deliver more efficient and competitive services, contributing to the success of Mexican businesses. •	Manzanillo, Colima- Specialized Container Terminal I: On October 13, we celebrated the arrival of two new STS (Ship To Shore) Super Post Panamax dockside cranes. This $21.2 million USD investment significantly boosts our operational capacity, streamlining cargo reception and delivery processes. In line with our modernization efforts, we will also retire four of our oldest cranes, paving the way for a more sustainable and technologically advanced fleet that meets the evolving demands of international trade. With these upgrades, SSA Marine México now operates a total of 16 cranes along our 1,350-meter dock, reaffirming our position as a national benchmark in port <span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-4_3 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-large" data-figure-size="large" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="4:3"><img src="/content-assets/1760982635607_Manzanillo.jpg" alt="Image provided by SSA Marine" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> •	As for the Multipurpose Terminal and Specialized Facility, also in Manzanillo, Colima, improvement and conditioning works are planned, along with the acquisition of four E-RTG (Electric Rubber-Tyred Gantry) cranes to enhance operational efficiency and sustainability. •	At our Automobile and General Cargo Terminal in the port of Veracruz, we continue to lead with specialized value-added services that support our clients’ growth. Recent investments include a new washing cabin and a general cargo warehouse, increasing indoor storage capacity by 67%. •	Lazaro Cardenas, Michoacan – Specialized Automobile Terminal: we are working on the development of an additional 4-hectare storage space within our bonded area and a 10-hectare Vehicle Distribution Center (VDC). These enhancements, along with ongoing personnel and system improvements, will reinforce our leadership in automotive handling across the Mexican Pacific coast.<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-4_3 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-large" data-figure-size="large" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="4:3"><img src="/content-assets/1760982742240_Lazaro.jpg" alt="Image provided by SSA Marine" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit"> Through these strategic investments, SSA Marine Mexico reaffirms its commitment to the sustained growth of Mexico’s foreign trade. By expanding capacity, modernizing infrastructure, and diversifying services, we continue to strengthen the country’s competitiveness in global logistics. Today, we celebrate three decades of dedication, innovation, and leadership, with deep gratitude to our employees, clients, and partners for being part of this incredible journey. LINK: https://www.ssamarine.mx/<span class="joc_admin__inline-image joc_admin__inline-image-aspect-ratio-16_9 joc_admin__inline-image-position-left joc_admin__inline-image-size-small" data-figure-size="small" data-figure-position="left" data-figure-aspect-ratio="16:9"><img src="/content-assets/1760982787360_SSA%20Marine%20Mexico%20logo%20150pxW.png" alt="" class="joc_admin__inline-image-inherit">

Manzanillo.jpg

SSA Marine Mexico: 30 years growing together.

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use code FSW30 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

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 GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use code FSW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

FALL SALE EXTENDED: Use codeFSW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

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 premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

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

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

Container Shipping News | 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

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

Capacity cuts support series of rate hikes on Asia-Europe ocean trade

Former CSX CEO denies that UP came to him first on potential merger

CMA CGM expects softer 2026 due to trade, rate and Red Sea uncertainties