<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers tell the Journal of Commerce they would prefer to avoid a strike and the lengthy operational upheaval a stoppage would cause along the East and Gulf coasts, but unlike in the past, they feel no urgency to get a deal done, writes Peter Tirschwell.</div>

Carriers tell the Journal of Commerce they would prefer to avoid a strike and the lengthy operational upheaval a stoppage would cause along the East and Gulf coasts, but unlike in the past, they feel no urgency to get a deal done, writes Peter Tirschwell.

Feature image

<div>For decades, a simple philosophy dictated how ocean carriers approached contract negotiations with US dockworkers: Keep the ports open. Even if it meant making major concessions on wages or benefits, carriers were primarily motivated to avoid disruption on the docks and were willing to pay handsomely to achieve that result. Carriers were “highly motivated to keep the ports open,” said a former management leader. <a>But in the current showdown over labor at East and Gulf coast container ports</a>, that philosophy no longer applies. Yes, ocean carriers tell the Journal of Commerce, they would prefer to avoid a strike and the...

For decades, a simple philosophy dictated how ocean carriers approached contract negotiations with US dockworkers: Keep the ports open. Even if it meant making major concessions on wages or benefits, carriers were primarily motivated to avoid disruption on the docks and were willing to pay handsomely to achieve that result. Carriers were “highly motivated to keep the ports open,” said a former management leader. But in the current showdown over labor at East and Gulf coast container ports , that philosophy no longer applies. Yes, ocean carriers tell the Journal of Commerce, they would prefer to avoid a strike and the lengthy operational upheaval and chaos for supply chains that a stoppage would cause. But unlike in the past, they feel no urgency to get a deal done. Carriers appear unwilling — at least this time around — to make major concessions to the International Longshoremen’s Association and its president, Harold Daggett, in the interest of keeping the ports open. Unlike in prior negotiations, there is no urgency or sense of high alarm among the carriers that the burden is on them to solve the problem. Thus, with no talks scheduled and the existing contract expiring in two weeks, it means the odds of a strike are high and growing. Indeed, sources close to the negotiations say they now expect the union will go on strike on Oct. 1. How long it will last and whether the Biden administration will invoke the Taft-Hartley Act to force dockworkers back to work are currently unknown. Recent negativity in US for carriers There is no specific reason why the carriers who dominate the board of the United States Maritime Alliance are thinking about these negotiations differently than prior bargaining cycles. Rather, their point of view is colored by recent negative experiences in the US market, from being personally blamed by President Joe Biden and members of Congress for the high rates and lack of capacity experienced by shippers during the pandemic, to the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 becoming law over their objections, to the Federal Maritime Commission morphing from a traditionally carrier-friendly body into what some now call a consumer protection agency for shippers. The resistance of carriers to capitulating at the negotiating table is also influenced by their inability in the US market, different from virtually everywhere else in the world, to recoup terminal handling charges from shippers. Thus, not only are US terminal costs, including labor, among the highest in the world, but carriers cannot assess a terminal handling charge on shipments to the shipper. So any pay increase for dockworkers that carriers agree to will come directly out of their pockets in the coming years, a fact the carriers are already painfully aware of from prior wage concessions on both the East and West coasts. Carriers also may find it difficult to imagine how in the event of a strike the Biden administration could find ways to pressure them to accept an agreement with the union they don’t like. There is no known leverage the White House could use to make carriers go higher than the reported 32% wage increase they have offered the union over a new six-year contract, or to get them to accept new rules for automation, as the union suggested it wanted in a Sept. 11 email. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Supply chain

Longshore labor

Maritime

Ocean carriers appear willing to roll the dice on possible US port strike

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Virginia Port Authority said the longshore union’s lawsuit alleging violations of the master contract doesn’t give clear picture of when it knew about the new rail gantry cranes. </div>

The Virginia Port Authority said the longshore union’s lawsuit alleging violations of the master contract doesn’t give clear picture of when it knew about the new rail gantry cranes.

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Virginia argues the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) knew two years ago about the rollout of new rail-mounted stacking cranes, despite the union saying it didn’t know about them until this year. The port made the claim as it seeks to dismiss the union’s lawsuit alleging a violation of the new master contract’s provisions on technology deployments. As part of an earlier motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) last week attached minutes from a May 2023 meeting of its board of commissioners at which the purchase of 36 automated stacking cranes had been discussed. According to the minutes, the meeting was attended by four ILA officials from two local chapters that represent about 1,500 of the port’s approximately 2,800 longshore workers. In August, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-suing-virginia-port-chief-executive-over-rollout-of-new-rail-cranes-6070318">the ILA sued the VPA</a> for what the union said was a violation of the new master contract ratified in March 2025. While the VPA is not a party to that contract, the union alleged the violation was done through the port’s control of stevedore Virginia International Terminals (VIT), which is the port’s actual employer. The union’s lawsuit said its members were only made aware of the new cranes as the first batch began to be installed in April 2025. The ILA claimed VIT did not bargain with the national union and its local unions about the new cranes as required under the master contract. Instead, the VIT deferred the matter to the VPA because it bought the cranes, the union’s lawsuit said. “If the ILA was to share the actual timeline surrounding the purchase of the RMG [rail-mounted gantry] cranes, it would reveal that the purchase took place in 2023 under a prior Master Contract and with the knowledge of the ILA,” the VPA’s filing said. The RMG cranes, purchased from Konecranes for $149 million, are part of a $650 million northern expansion of Norfolk International Terminals (NIT) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/port-of-virginia-readies-more-cranes-for-ultra-large-container-ships-5985615">that will add two new super-post-Panamax berths and bring NIT’s capacity to 3.6 million TEUs by 2027</a>. <h3>RMGs long a bane of ILA </h3>Virginia is the first US port credited with implementation of RMG technology, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ila-targets-rail-mounted-gantry-cranes-amid-impasse-in-port-labor-talks-5874742">having rolled it out in 2007</a>. RMGs allow for more densely-stacked container yards than using rubber tire gantry cranes or straddle carriers, which require more room to operate. Across both terminals, Virginia will have 152 RMGs in place by 2027. Despite being called “automated stacking cranes,” RMGs are still operated by a human, either in a cab or remotely. Even so, the ILA’s leadership has viewed RMGs as threatening other skilled operator jobs at the ports. One issue at the heart of local contract negotiations has been staffing machines such as RMGs. Maritime employers won the right to implement remotely-controlled RMGs, which should save time during shift changes or rest breaks. For its part, the ILA secured guarantees for one longshore operator on each RMG, as opposed to one operator on multiple RMGs. The federal judge overseeing the case can either rule directly on VPA’s motion to dismiss or schedule a hearing for both sides, according to the ILA’s legal representative. But there is no specific timeline for either action. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of Virginia argues the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) knew two years ago about the rollout of new rail-mounted stacking cranes, despite the union saying it didn’t know about them until this year. The port made the claim as it seeks to dismiss the union’s lawsuit alleging a violation of the new master contract’s provisions on technology deployments. As part of an earlier motion to dismiss the lawsuit, the Virginia Port Authority (VPA) last week attached minutes from a May 2023 meeting of its board of commissioners at which the purchase of 36 automated stacking cranes had been discussed. According to the minutes, the meeting was attended by four ILA officials from two local chapters that represent about 1,500 of the port’s approximately 2,800 longshore workers. In August, the ILA sued the VPA for what the union said was a violation of the new master contract ratified in March 2025. While the VPA is not a party to that contract, the union alleged the violation was done through the port’s control of stevedore Virginia International Terminals (VIT), which is the port’s actual employer. The union’s lawsuit said its members were only made aware of the new cranes as the first batch began to be installed in April 2025. The ILA claimed VIT did not bargain with the national union and its local unions about the new cranes as required under the master contract. Instead, the VIT deferred the matter to the VPA because it bought the cranes, the union’s lawsuit said. “If the ILA was to share the actual timeline surrounding the purchase of the RMG [rail-mounted gantry] cranes, it would reveal that the purchase took place in 2023 under a prior Master Contract and with the knowledge of the ILA,” the VPA’s filing said. The RMG cranes, purchased from Konecranes for $149 million, are part of a $650 million northern expansion of Norfolk International Terminals (NIT) that will add two new super-post-Panamax berths and bring NIT’s capacity to 3.6 million TEUs by 2027 . RMGs long a bane of ILA Virginia is the first US port credited with implementation of RMG technology, having rolled it out in 2007 . RMGs allow for more densely-stacked container yards than using rubber tire gantry cranes or straddle carriers, which require more room to operate. Across both terminals, Virginia will have 152 RMGs in place by 2027. Despite being called “automated stacking cranes,” RMGs are still operated by a human, either in a cab or remotely. Even so, the ILA’s leadership has viewed RMGs as threatening other skilled operator jobs at the ports. One issue at the heart of local contract negotiations has been staffing machines such as RMGs. Maritime employers won the right to implement remotely-controlled RMGs, which should save time during shift changes or rest breaks. For its part, the ILA secured guarantees for one longshore operator on each RMG, as opposed to one operator on multiple RMGs. The federal judge overseeing the case can either rule directly on VPA’s motion to dismiss or schedule a hearing for both sides, according to the ILA’s legal representative. But there is no specific timeline for either action. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

North American ports

Virginia port looks to dismiss ILA lawsuit on rail crane rollout

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. </div>

Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court.

<div class="phx-topic">The drayage industry is hoping maritime regulators will come out of the US government shutdown and clarify rulemaking aimed at shielding them from unfounded demurrage charges for the late return or retrieval of containers at marine terminals. In the meantime, a former Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) member is encouraging truckers and terminal operators to continue filing their concerns with the appropriate federal agencies, knowing that responses may be late in coming. Drayage operators’ concerns center on the impact of the DC Court of Appeals in late September <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/appeals-court-strikes-down-fmcs-detention-and-demurrage-billing-rule-6086773">striking down part of an FMC rulemaking</a> to clarify who is responsible for charges on the delayed retrieval and return of containers to marine terminals. Ocean carriers, truckers and terminal operators had anticipated that the FMC would either challenge the court’s decision or rewrite the rule to address the issues the court had with it. The agency then shut down on Oct. 1 and work has since stopped. “Obviously we are disappointed by the court’s ruling,” Jon Eisen, director, Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference of the American Trucking Associations, told the Journal of Commerce. “How this will play out I’m not sure,” he said The FMC rule that was issued in February 2024 had required more transparent invoicing of demurrage and detention charges. It had set timelines for billing and limited which parties involved in container haulage could be charged for the delayed retrieval and return of containers. The court said the FMC’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.” Although the FMC remains closed, that should not discourage truckers, terminal operators or other stakeholders that operate under the agency’s regulations from continuing to file their concerns with the FMC, said Carl Bentzel, a former FMC commissioner who is now president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers. Container terminals in Los Angeles-Long Beach have remained fluid since the government shutdown. “It’s business as usual. Cargo is flowing nicely,” said Alan McCorkle, president of Yusen Terminals in Los Angeles. Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The drayage industry is hoping maritime regulators will come out of the US government shutdown and clarify rulemaking aimed at shielding them from unfounded demurrage charges for the late return or retrieval of containers at marine terminals. In the meantime, a former Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) member is encouraging truckers and terminal operators to continue filing their concerns with the appropriate federal agencies, knowing that responses may be late in coming. Drayage operators’ concerns center on the impact of the DC Court of Appeals in late September striking down part of an FMC rulemaking to clarify who is responsible for charges on the delayed retrieval and return of containers to marine terminals. Ocean carriers, truckers and terminal operators had anticipated that the FMC would either challenge the court’s decision or rewrite the rule to address the issues the court had with it. The agency then shut down on Oct. 1 and work has since stopped. “Obviously we are disappointed by the court’s ruling,” Jon Eisen, director, Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference of the American Trucking Associations, told the Journal of Commerce. “How this will play out I’m not sure,” he said The FMC rule that was issued in February 2024 had required more transparent invoicing of demurrage and detention charges. It had set timelines for billing and limited which parties involved in container haulage could be charged for the delayed retrieval and return of containers. The court said the FMC’s rule was “arbitrary and capricious.” Although the FMC remains closed, that should not discourage truckers, terminal operators or other stakeholders that operate under the agency’s regulations from continuing to file their concerns with the FMC, said Carl Bentzel, a former FMC commissioner who is now president of the National Association of Waterfront Employers. Container terminals in Los Angeles-Long Beach have remained fluid since the government shutdown. “It’s business as usual. Cargo is flowing nicely,” said Alan McCorkle, president of Yusen Terminals in Los Angeles. Terminal operators in Los Angeles-Long Beach have seen no changes in demurrage billing practices since the Federal Maritime Commission’s demurrage rule was struck down by an appeals court. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Drayage

Drayage industry hopes for FMC relief on demurrage billing

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers continue to struggle to raise rates on intermodal shippers, resulting in revenue gains or losses based solely on volume.</div>

Carriers continue to struggle to raise rates on intermodal shippers, resulting in revenue gains or losses based solely on volume.

<div class="phx-topic">Domestic intermodal providers — whether the railroads or intermodal marketing companies — will have to find revenue gains through volume growth rather than stronger pricing into 2026. CSX Transportation said that intermodal revenue grew 4% in the third quarter largely based on a 5% increase in volume rather than raising rates on rail shippers, putting shippers on track for competitive pricing into 2026. The railroad reported Thursday that intermodal volume was led by “strong growth” in international business and “modest growth” in domestic, suggesting containerized ocean freight outpaced 53-foot domestic demand. CSX attributed most of its growth to “new service offerings” rather than higher prices on legacy business. The carrier expects momentum to continue into 2026, bolstered when double-stack intermodal service through Baltimore commences in the spring. The expanded clearance project is expected to attract freight shipped along the Interstate 95 corridor and between the West Coast and Northeast via CSX’s partnership with BNSF Railway. “Intermodal performed well despite a soft trucking market and muted pricing,” said Kevin Boone, CSX’s chief commercial officer, on a Thursday earnings call. “Looking across the markets we serve, business conditions are mixed. Customers face uncertainty and headwinds from shifting trade policies, weak global commodity prices, unsupportive interest rates and a persistently soft trucking market.” Boone described the truckload sector as “the longest down cycle that all of us have seen in a long, long time,” now stretching past three years. CSX’s comments reflect a broader trend that pricing is stagnant nationally, and volume is dictating quarterly results for intermodal. <h3>Rate pressure persists in 2026 </h3>With trucking rates still depressed, intermodal providers are bracing for a fourth straight bid season in which carriers will be unable to recoup rising costs to serve. The average domestic intermodal contract stood at $1.50 per mile in September — approximately the same as pre-pandemic levels — according to the Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index. National rates were unchanged from September 2024 and remain more than 25% below the pandemic-era peak. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ea6d4c62-90a1-4a5f-8fb1-9f00b53850b0"></dynamic-object></div>J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US domestic intermodal provider, said rates are rising on major US lanes traveling west to east, particularly out of Southern California, but are flat or down elsewhere. “There is some good pricing movement in the headhauls and some negative pricing in backhauls, and when you combine them, it looks relatively muted in terms of price per load,” said Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, on an earnings call Wednesday. Schneider National, the third-largest domestic intermodal provider, said recent intermodal awards have produced very little change in pricing. “We expected flat pricing in 2025, and it ultimately played out that way,” said Mark Rourke, CEO of Schneider, speaking Oct. 1 at the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference in Chicago. “Trucking rates serve as the catalyst to intermodal, and that’s where we are in discussions with customers planning for the 2026 season.” While Rourke declined to provide forward guidance, he said Schneider has been able to raise dry-van truckload rates, although only by sacrificing volume. “When our goal is rate recovery and margin recovery, that’s our number one priority and volume is a lesser concern,” Rourke said. “If we have to get smaller or make different decisions in the one-way [truckload] network, that’s the trade-off we’re willing to make at this part of the cycle.” <h3>Muted peak season demand won’t help carriers </h3>Executives across the sector said the weak freight environment continues to limit carrier pricing power. Schneider said intermodal volume was “sub-standard” in August, while J.B. Hunt reported transcontinental volume <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-intermodal-volume-retracts-amid-cost-cutting-measures-6098480">declined 6% year over year</a> in the third quarter. Leaders at logistics providers C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Radiant Road &amp; Rail, and Werner Enterprises echoed that peak season volume on the West Coast was “muted.” “Intermodal contracts are going to follow trucking, and we’ve seen trucking remain really flat,” said Julia Hoult, assistant vice president of logistics for Werner, speaking Oct. 1 at the Inland conference. “We shouldn’t be surprised intermodal is feeling the same way.” Taylor Harrington, director of C.H. Robinson’s intermodal division, said that a modest uptick in pricing is possible in early 2026 but probably not enough to offset rising costs. The producer price index for commercial transportation insurance rose 6% year over year in August, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Inflationary costs could be 4% or 5%, but the question becomes: can carriers recover 1%? Can they recover 2%?” Harrington said at the conference. “It’ll vary shipper by shipper and lane by lane, but it’ll be tough to recover all of it.” Chris Brach, senior vice president of Radiant Road &amp; Rail, said pricing remains challenging in the East, where the cost gap between rail and trucking is narrower than on long-haul moves from the West Coast to the Midwest. Backhaul lanes into Southern California are also under pressure as Amazon increasingly fills its own containers with return freight from other shippers, undercutting traditional intermodal carriers and intensifying competition for backhaul business. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Domestic intermodal providers — whether the railroads or intermodal marketing companies — will have to find revenue gains through volume growth rather than stronger pricing into 2026. CSX Transportation said that intermodal revenue grew 4% in the third quarter largely based on a 5% increase in volume rather than raising rates on rail shippers, putting shippers on track for competitive pricing into 2026. The railroad reported Thursday that intermodal volume was led by “strong growth” in international business and “modest growth” in domestic, suggesting containerized ocean freight outpaced 53-foot domestic demand. CSX attributed most of its growth to “new service offerings” rather than higher prices on legacy business. The carrier expects momentum to continue into 2026, bolstered when double-stack intermodal service through Baltimore commences in the spring. The expanded clearance project is expected to attract freight shipped along the Interstate 95 corridor and between the West Coast and Northeast via CSX’s partnership with BNSF Railway. “Intermodal performed well despite a soft trucking market and muted pricing,” said Kevin Boone, CSX’s chief commercial officer, on a Thursday earnings call. “Looking across the markets we serve, business conditions are mixed. Customers face uncertainty and headwinds from shifting trade policies, weak global commodity prices, unsupportive interest rates and a persistently soft trucking market.” Boone described the truckload sector as “the longest down cycle that all of us have seen in a long, long time,” now stretching past three years. CSX’s comments reflect a broader trend that pricing is stagnant nationally, and volume is dictating quarterly results for intermodal. Rate pressure persists in 2026 With trucking rates still depressed, intermodal providers are bracing for a fourth straight bid season in which carriers will be unable to recoup rising costs to serve. The average domestic intermodal contract stood at $1.50 per mile in September — approximately the same as pre-pandemic levels — according to the Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index. National rates were unchanged from September 2024 and remain more than 25% below the pandemic-era peak. J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US domestic intermodal provider, said rates are rising on major US lanes traveling west to east, particularly out of Southern California, but are flat or down elsewhere. “There is some good pricing movement in the headhauls and some negative pricing in backhauls, and when you combine them, it looks relatively muted in terms of price per load,” said Darren Field, president of J.B. Hunt’s intermodal division, on an earnings call Wednesday. Schneider National, the third-largest domestic intermodal provider, said recent intermodal awards have produced very little change in pricing. “We expected flat pricing in 2025, and it ultimately played out that way,” said Mark Rourke, CEO of Schneider, speaking Oct. 1 at the Journal of Commerce Inland Distribution Conference in Chicago. “Trucking rates serve as the catalyst to intermodal, and that’s where we are in discussions with customers planning for the 2026 season.” While Rourke declined to provide forward guidance, he said Schneider has been able to raise dry-van truckload rates, although only by sacrificing volume. “When our goal is rate recovery and margin recovery, that’s our number one priority and volume is a lesser concern,” Rourke said. “If we have to get smaller or make different decisions in the one-way [truckload] network, that’s the trade-off we’re willing to make at this part of the cycle.” Muted peak season demand won’t help carriers Executives across the sector said the weak freight environment continues to limit carrier pricing power. Schneider said intermodal volume was “sub-standard” in August, while J.B. Hunt reported transcontinental volume declined 6% year over year in the third quarter. Leaders at logistics providers C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Radiant Road & Rail, and Werner Enterprises echoed that peak season volume on the West Coast was “muted.” “Intermodal contracts are going to follow trucking, and we’ve seen trucking remain really flat,” said Julia Hoult, assistant vice president of logistics for Werner, speaking Oct. 1 at the Inland conference. “We shouldn’t be surprised intermodal is feeling the same way.” Taylor Harrington, director of C.H. Robinson’s intermodal division, said that a modest uptick in pricing is possible in early 2026 but probably not enough to offset rising costs. The producer price index for commercial transportation insurance rose 6% year over year in August, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Inflationary costs could be 4% or 5%, but the question becomes: can carriers recover 1%? Can they recover 2%?” Harrington said at the conference. “It’ll vary shipper by shipper and lane by lane, but it’ll be tough to recover all of it.” Chris Brach, senior vice president of Radiant Road & Rail, said pricing remains challenging in the East, where the cost gap between rail and trucking is narrower than on long-haul moves from the West Coast to the Midwest. Backhaul lanes into Southern California are also under pressure as Amazon increasingly fills its own containers with return freight from other shippers, undercutting traditional intermodal carriers and intensifying competition for backhaul business. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Volume, not pricing, driving US intermodal results in Q3

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The ill-tempered environmental protection committee session was filled with procedural maneuvering as member states opposed to the net-zero framework attempted to delay the proceedings. </div>

The ill-tempered environmental protection committee session was filled with procedural maneuvering as member states opposed to the net-zero framework attempted to delay the proceedings.

<div class="phx-topic">Member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) voted to postpone for one year the adoption of far-reaching decarbonization plans, with the US and petrostates Saudia Arabia and Russia leading efforts to derail the adoption of the greenhouse gas cutting measures. The United States has gone as far as threatening to target the ships of IMO member states that didn’t support efforts to ease fuel standards. A visibly upset IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez told delegates in his remarks following the Friday vote that “there are no winners and losers in this session.” The motion to delay the adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework, put forward by Singapore, was called to a vote by Saudi Arabia in a tense and combative session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London this week. The vote to delay was 57 in favor, 49 against and 21 abstentions. “The outcome is your decision, and I will always respect that, but it is the manner in which the conversations took place this week … this was not a normal IMO meeting,” Dominguez said. “As we come to an end, my plea to you is not to repeat the way we have approached this meeting in future discussions of this or any other meeting at the IMO,” he added. “It doesn’t help you or your organization.” In the MEPC meeting in April, there was a clear majority in favor of the net-zero framework among IMO member nations, as well as from container carriers, major ports and shipping associations such as BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC). That momentum has now been lost following this week’s ill-tempered MEPC session filled with procedural maneuvering as member states opposed to the net-zero framework attempted to delay the proceedings. At one point, the secretary general was forced to intervene in a debate over carbon rules after the US accused the IMO secretariat of bias. Saudi Arabia and the US later attempted to further stall proceedings by proposing that the rules be accepted by explicit acceptance rather than tacit, an approach to voting that seldom delivers a result. <h3>Aggressive US attempts to limit support </h3>The lead up to the meeting was characterized by aggressive US attempts to limit support for the net-zero framework, with Washington threatening sanctions, port fees and visa restrictions on countries voting in support of the measure. President Trump even weighed in on his Truth Social media platform with a post Thursday saying “the US will not stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. Stand with the US and vote NO in London tomorrow!” As delegates prepared to return home empty-handed, some reflected that putting the talks on hold will give countries more time to find consensus on a flagship climate law, while others fear it was a missed opportunity and the US will simply ramp up pressure on developing countries to oppose adoption at a later stage. Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, called the adjournment a “disappointing setback for shipping.” “The adjournment for a full year creates serious challenges for meeting the timelines in the net-zero framework agreed in April and will make delivery of the sector’s decarbonization targets even more challenging,” he said. “We encourage member states that agreed on the framework in April to re-confirm their commitment to multilateralism and continue the urgent work of developing guidelines and adopting a regulatory framework that can deliver on the IMO’s unanimously agreed greenhouse gas strategy,” he added. Natacha Stamatiou, manager of global shipping and IMO delegation lead at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the delay means “innovation will struggle to scale, inequities will deepen and the transition to clean shipping will become harder and more costly.” Other climate activists were more direct in their criticism. Emma Fenton, senior diplomacy director at Opportunity Green, called the outcome “a devastating indictment of member states’ lack of courage.” “Faced with pressure, too many governments chose political compromise over climate justice, and in doing so, abandoned the countries bearing the brunt of the climate crisis,” she said after the meeting concluded. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) voted to postpone for one year the adoption of far-reaching decarbonization plans, with the US and petrostates Saudia Arabia and Russia leading efforts to derail the adoption of the greenhouse gas cutting measures. The United States has gone as far as threatening to target the ships of IMO member states that didn’t support efforts to ease fuel standards. A visibly upset IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez told delegates in his remarks following the Friday vote that “there are no winners and losers in this session.” The motion to delay the adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework, put forward by Singapore, was called to a vote by Saudi Arabia in a tense and combative session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London this week. The vote to delay was 57 in favor, 49 against and 21 abstentions. “The outcome is your decision, and I will always respect that, but it is the manner in which the conversations took place this week … this was not a normal IMO meeting,” Dominguez said. “As we come to an end, my plea to you is not to repeat the way we have approached this meeting in future discussions of this or any other meeting at the IMO,” he added. “It doesn’t help you or your organization.” In the MEPC meeting in April, there was a clear majority in favor of the net-zero framework among IMO member nations, as well as from container carriers, major ports and shipping associations such as BIMCO, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) and the World Shipping Council (WSC). That momentum has now been lost following this week’s ill-tempered MEPC session filled with procedural maneuvering as member states opposed to the net-zero framework attempted to delay the proceedings. At one point, the secretary general was forced to intervene in a debate over carbon rules after the US accused the IMO secretariat of bias. Saudi Arabia and the US later attempted to further stall proceedings by proposing that the rules be accepted by explicit acceptance rather than tacit, an approach to voting that seldom delivers a result. Aggressive US attempts to limit support The lead up to the meeting was characterized by aggressive US attempts to limit support for the net-zero framework, with Washington threatening sanctions, port fees and visa restrictions on countries voting in support of the measure. President Trump even weighed in on his Truth Social media platform with a post Thursday saying “the US will not stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. Stand with the US and vote NO in London tomorrow!” As delegates prepared to return home empty-handed, some reflected that putting the talks on hold will give countries more time to find consensus on a flagship climate law, while others fear it was a missed opportunity and the US will simply ramp up pressure on developing countries to oppose adoption at a later stage. Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonization at the Global Maritime Forum, called the adjournment a “disappointing setback for shipping.” “The adjournment for a full year creates serious challenges for meeting the timelines in the net-zero framework agreed in April and will make delivery of the sector’s decarbonization targets even more challenging,” he said. “We encourage member states that agreed on the framework in April to re-confirm their commitment to multilateralism and continue the urgent work of developing guidelines and adopting a regulatory framework that can deliver on the IMO’s unanimously agreed greenhouse gas strategy,” he added. Natacha Stamatiou, manager of global shipping and IMO delegation lead at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the delay means “innovation will struggle to scale, inequities will deepen and the transition to clean shipping will become harder and more costly.” Other climate activists were more direct in their criticism. Emma Fenton, senior diplomacy director at Opportunity Green, called the outcome “a devastating indictment of member states’ lack of courage.” “Faced with pressure, too many governments chose political compromise over climate justice, and in doing so, abandoned the countries bearing the brunt of the climate crisis,” she said after the meeting concluded. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

IMO punts on pivotal net-zero shipping regulation

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Tariffs have increased sixfold since January, but those cost increases have yet to fully reveal themselves in consumer prices.</div>

Tariffs have increased sixfold since January, but those cost increases have yet to fully reveal themselves in consumer prices.

<div class="phx-topic">Norfolk, Virginia — US tariffs haven’t yet had a clear impact on inflation but could soon reveal themselves as a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tariff-uncertainty-to-keep-lid-on-us-import-growth-until-spring-retailers-6094200">hindrance on economic growth</a>, Renee Haltom, vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, told the Virginia Maritime Association’s International Trade Symposium Thursday. Haltom’s assessment of the impact of tariffs comes amid an environment where overall tariff levels are on average six times higher than they were in January, and ahead of a threatened 100% tariffs on goods from China starting Nov. 1. But, so far, the impact has been muted by a range of factors that have delayed the assessment of tariffs on importers, who have frontloaded volumes during windows in which tariff levels on Chinese goods have been relaxed. “The key question is, are tariffs a one-time price increase?,” she asked. “In principle, you pass a tariff and those adjustment costs happen right away, and then we all move on with our lives. Inflation isn’t sustainably higher with just a one-time price increase. So, the question is, is this going to be this one-time adjustment cost, or is it going to be something more long-lasting?” Haltom said that past tariffs have tended to have a predictable economic effect: Every 10% increase in tariffs results in a 1% increase in prices. “Thinking about the current tariffs levels, which are pretty high, that would be a pretty large increase in prices that we just haven’t seen yet,” she said. There are a number of factors leading to the lack of impact tariffs have had on inflation, Haltom explained. First, there’s been a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/strong-spending-lean-inventories-could-spur-us-import-rebound-in-early-2026-6099089">lag between the announced tariffs</a> and what has actually been assessed, largely due to grace periods on implementations and exemptions for certain products or companies. Second, there’s a delay between when tariffs are incurred by importers, and when those importers can pass some or all the costs of the tariffs into consumer prices. “That delay is about waiting to see which tariffs are going to stick, because tariff policies are up and down and on and off,” she said. “I don’t want to anger my customers if there’s a chance this is going to go away.” Businesses are engaging in what Haltom called “elasticity testing,” where they might increase the price of a product with inelastic demand, but hold tight on prices in categories where consumers are price sensitive. There’s also an element of watching competitors’ prices that keeps inflation in check, she added. A third element to consider is that, according to Haltom, “businesses say that if your customers are other businesses, you’re going to try to pass it through, but if your customers are consumers and households, they’re not pushing that hard.” Overall, Haltom said the US economy is in a relatively stable position. Household debt relative to income is, on a historical basis, not high. Unemployment is at its lowest level in more than 60 years, largely due to a shrinking labor-ready pool due to retirements and the Trump administration curtailing of immigration. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Norfolk, Virginia — US tariffs haven’t yet had a clear impact on inflation but could soon reveal themselves as a hindrance on economic growth , Renee Haltom, vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, told the Virginia Maritime Association’s International Trade Symposium Thursday. Haltom’s assessment of the impact of tariffs comes amid an environment where overall tariff levels are on average six times higher than they were in January, and ahead of a threatened 100% tariffs on goods from China starting Nov. 1. But, so far, the impact has been muted by a range of factors that have delayed the assessment of tariffs on importers, who have frontloaded volumes during windows in which tariff levels on Chinese goods have been relaxed. “The key question is, are tariffs a one-time price increase?,” she asked. “In principle, you pass a tariff and those adjustment costs happen right away, and then we all move on with our lives. Inflation isn’t sustainably higher with just a one-time price increase. So, the question is, is this going to be this one-time adjustment cost, or is it going to be something more long-lasting?” Haltom said that past tariffs have tended to have a predictable economic effect: Every 10% increase in tariffs results in a 1% increase in prices. “Thinking about the current tariffs levels, which are pretty high, that would be a pretty large increase in prices that we just haven’t seen yet,” she said. There are a number of factors leading to the lack of impact tariffs have had on inflation, Haltom explained. First, there’s been a lag between the announced tariffs and what has actually been assessed, largely due to grace periods on implementations and exemptions for certain products or companies. Second, there’s a delay between when tariffs are incurred by importers, and when those importers can pass some or all the costs of the tariffs into consumer prices. “That delay is about waiting to see which tariffs are going to stick, because tariff policies are up and down and on and off,” she said. “I don’t want to anger my customers if there’s a chance this is going to go away.” Businesses are engaging in what Haltom called “elasticity testing,” where they might increase the price of a product with inelastic demand, but hold tight on prices in categories where consumers are price sensitive. There’s also an element of watching competitors’ prices that keeps inflation in check, she added. A third element to consider is that, according to Haltom, “businesses say that if your customers are other businesses, you’re going to try to pass it through, but if your customers are consumers and households, they’re not pushing that hard.” Overall, Haltom said the US economy is in a relatively stable position. Household debt relative to income is, on a historical basis, not high. Unemployment is at its lowest level in more than 60 years, largely due to a shrinking labor-ready pool due to retirements and the Trump administration curtailing of immigration. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Importers await tariff impact amid stable economic indicators: Richmond Fed

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 STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY AND SAVE!

Upgrade to Gold using code TPMGW595 to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/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

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous 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

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

Upgrade Subscription

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD: Upgrade to Gold using code TPMGW595 to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE MORE WITH GOLD: Use code TPM26GW995 at checkout to save $500 on a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous 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

Container Shipping 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

Virginia port looks to dismiss ILA lawsuit on rail crane rollout

Drayage industry hopes for FMC relief on demurrage billing

Volume, not pricing, driving US intermodal results in Q3