<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As sales of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks improved, manufacturer Paccar increased its profit 160 percent to $68.3 million in the first quarter. 
 
</div>

As sales of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks improved, manufacturer Paccar increased its profit 160 percent to $68.3 million in the first quarter.

<div>As sales of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks improved, manufacturer Paccar increased its profit 160 percent to $68.3 million in the first quarter. Net sales grew from $1.7 billion a year ago to just about $2 billion in the three months ended March 31. Paccar said it saw stronger truck sales in North America in the quarter and improved financial services profit and parts revenue.&amp;ldquo;Financial results for the first quarter reflect the benefit of a small &amp;lsquo;pre-buy&amp;rsquo; in the U.S. and Canadian markets as customers transition to the new EPA 2010 engine emission technology. However, the U.S. and Canada truck markets...

As sales of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks improved, manufacturer Paccar increased its profit 160 percent to $68.3 million in the first quarter. Net sales grew from $1.7 billion a year ago to just about $2 billion in the three months ended March 31. Paccar said it saw stronger truck sales in North America in the quarter and improved financial services profit and parts revenue. &ldquo;Financial results for the first quarter reflect the benefit of a small &lsquo;pre-buy&rsquo; in the U.S. and Canadian markets as customers transition to the new EPA 2010 engine emission technology. However, the U.S. and Canada truck markets are being negatively impacted in the second quarter as the industry adjusts to higher-priced vehicles,&rdquo; said Mark Pigott, chairman and CEO, in a statement. Perhaps somewhat allaying Pigott&rsquo;s fears for the second quarter, TransAm Trucking, a refrigerated fleet company in Olathe, Kan., this week ordered 1,050 Kenworth T660 trucks equipped with Paccar-built engines and 72-inch sleeper cabs. The deal is worth more than $100 million, valuing the 485-horsepower Paccar MC engines at their list price of over $100,000 each. This year is the first time Paccar has manufactured its own engines for North American trucks, after decades of outfitting them with engines made by other builders. &ldquo;This order from TransAm Trucking is a remarkable way to help introduce the Paccar MX engine into the North American market,&rdquo; said Bill Kozek, Kenworth general manager and Paccar vice president, in a statement. Contact Thomas L. Gallagher at tgallagher@joc.com .

Trucking News

Paccar Profit Jumps 160 Percent

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim will be forced to wait until early April before implementing surcharges designed to recoup higher operating costs associated with the war in the Middle East. </div>

The decision means CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim will be forced to wait until early April before implementing surcharges designed to recoup higher operating costs associated with the war in the Middle East.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Monday unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, as required by US shipping law, filed 30-day notices with the FMC in early March informing the agency of their intent to implement special surcharges on customers in order to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-reignites-tussle-between-ocean-carriers-cargo-owners-over-fuel-surcharges-6188632">recoup the higher operating costs</a> tied to spiking fuel prices and the disruption to ships and equipment after the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Along with the notices came requests by the carriers to waive the 30-day waiting period, which would have allowed the liners to implement the new charges immediately. Zim’s surcharge applies to all US trades, while the charges for the other three carriers apply only to their US-Middle East trade. “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are: linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge,” FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said in a statement. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.” DiBella recommended that carriers provide data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” <h3>Seeking to recoup higher costs </h3>The surcharge notices filed with the FMC are just one of the ways container lines are trying to recoup the higher costs. Cargo contracted on a long-term basis rather than via freight-all-kinds rates (FAK) are subject to bunker adjustment factors reset quarterly and floating fuel surcharges that can be reset as frequently as monthly. Ocean carriers began assessing war-related surcharges for any shipments to and from the Persian Gulf states on March 2. The FMC must grant special permission for any such charges to be implemented on US trades prior to the end of a 30-day review period. The surcharges filed with the FMC by Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk pertain only to shipments between the US and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Maersk’s surcharge specifically noted eastern Saudi Arabia. Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot unit; and $3,800 for refrigerated and special containers. Hapag-Lloyd plans to levy $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 for reefer containers. CMA CGM said it would implement an emergency conflict surcharge on exports and imports from the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU; and $4,000 for reefer and special containers. Zim plans to seek a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. Zim said the war has increased the cost of running its network and operations at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel. “These increased costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums and tighter P&amp;I coverage terms; the need to delay, speed up, and/or re-route vessels and cargo; increased equipment positioning/repositioning costs resulting from changes in vessel schedules; and a loss of productivity as the result of employees having to take refuge in bomb shelters throughout the day and night, among others,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing three of the carriers, wrote to the FMC. While the carriers filed their surcharge notices separately, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim are represented by Cozen O’Conner. The carriers each told the FMC that unless the 30-day notice period for the surcharges was waived, they would be unable to begin recovering the increased costs they are experiencing for almost a full month. <h3>Waiver requests filed in early March </h3>The various requests were filed by the carriers between March 2-5, following the beginning of the war on Feb. 28. The four requests are the only ones that have been processed by the agency so far, an FMC spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce on Monday. The FMC in mid-March told shippers to check their ocean freight bills for any surcharges related to the war in the Middle East that have not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the agency said it was “closely monitoring the impact the current conflict in the Middle East is having on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz” and any rate adjustments ocean carriers are making in response. The FMC in early 2024 came under fire from shippers, including the Agriculture Transport Coalition, after waiving for one ocean carrier the 30-day notice period for surcharges tied to vessel diversions away from the Suez Canal due to attacks by Houthi militants on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. A subsequent economic analysis questioned whether the surcharge was warranted, given the carrier was also avoiding Suez Canal tolls by diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a></div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) on Monday unanimously rejected separate requests from four ocean carriers to waive a 30-day notice period to implement surcharges tied to the war in the Middle East, forcing the four to wait until early April to charge their shipper customers. CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk and Zim Integrated Shipping Services, as required by US shipping law, filed 30-day notices with the FMC in early March informing the agency of their intent to implement special surcharges on customers in order to recoup the higher operating costs tied to spiking fuel prices and the disruption to ships and equipment after the US and Israel launched attacks against Iran on Feb. 28. Along with the notices came requests by the carriers to waive the 30-day waiting period, which would have allowed the liners to implement the new charges immediately. Zim’s surcharge applies to all US trades, while the charges for the other three carriers apply only to their US-Middle East trade. “In my view, when a carrier seeks special permission to reduce the 30 days’ notice period for a surcharge, the carrier should demonstrate how its increased costs are: linked to the dollar amount of the proposed surcharge,” FMC Chairman Laura DiBella said in a statement. “An assertion that there are increased costs, without any data on what those costs are, how long they may last, and what steps the carrier is taking to mitigate them, is insufficient in demonstrating good cause.” DiBella recommended that carriers provide data behind the decision to levy the surcharge and specify a duration, so the fee is “reasonably related to the increased costs.” Seeking to recoup higher costs The surcharge notices filed with the FMC are just one of the ways container lines are trying to recoup the higher costs. Cargo contracted on a long-term basis rather than via freight-all-kinds rates (FAK) are subject to bunker adjustment factors reset quarterly and floating fuel surcharges that can be reset as frequently as monthly. Ocean carriers began assessing war-related surcharges for any shipments to and from the Persian Gulf states on March 2. The FMC must grant special permission for any such charges to be implemented on US trades prior to the end of a 30-day review period. The surcharges filed with the FMC by Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk pertain only to shipments between the US and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. Maersk’s surcharge specifically noted eastern Saudi Arabia. Maersk plans to charge $1,800 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU and 45-foot unit; and $3,800 for refrigerated and special containers. Hapag-Lloyd plans to levy $1,500 per dry TEU and $3,500 for reefer containers. CMA CGM said it would implement an emergency conflict surcharge on exports and imports from the Middle East and Africa at $2,000 per TEU; $3,000 per FEU; and $4,000 for reefer and special containers. Zim plans to seek a war risk surcharge of $25 per TEU and $50 per FEU on all US shipments. Zim said the war has increased the cost of running its network and operations at its headquarters in Haifa, Israel. “These increased costs include higher war-risk insurance premiums and tighter P&I coverage terms; the need to delay, speed up, and/or re-route vessels and cargo; increased equipment positioning/repositioning costs resulting from changes in vessel schedules; and a loss of productivity as the result of employees having to take refuge in bomb shelters throughout the day and night, among others,” Wayne Rohde, an attorney at Cozen O’Conner representing three of the carriers, wrote to the FMC. While the carriers filed their surcharge notices separately, Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd and Zim are represented by Cozen O’Conner. The carriers each told the FMC that unless the 30-day notice period for the surcharges was waived, they would be unable to begin recovering the increased costs they are experiencing for almost a full month. Waiver requests filed in early March The various requests were filed by the carriers between March 2-5, following the beginning of the war on Feb. 28. The four requests are the only ones that have been processed by the agency so far, an FMC spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce on Monday. The FMC in mid-March told shippers to check their ocean freight bills for any surcharges related to the war in the Middle East that have not been formally reviewed by the agency. In a March 11 statement, the agency said it was “closely monitoring the impact the current conflict in the Middle East is having on shipping conditions through the Strait of Hormuz” and any rate adjustments ocean carriers are making in response. The FMC in early 2024 came under fire from shippers, including the Agriculture Transport Coalition, after waiving for one ocean carrier the 30-day notice period for surcharges tied to vessel diversions away from the Suez Canal due to attacks by Houthi militants on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. A subsequent economic analysis questioned whether the surcharge was warranted, given the carrier was also avoiding Suez Canal tolls by diverting around the Cape of Good Hope. Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Supply chain

Container Shipping News

Maritime

FMC rejects requests by carriers to waive waiting period for Middle East surcharges

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper"> Reefer shipments into the port, while still small, have been growing faster than overall cargo, forcing port officials to deal with more long-dwelling containers. </div>

 Reefer shipments into the port, while still small, have been growing faster than overall cargo, forcing port officials to deal with more long-dwelling containers. 

<div class="phx-topic">The Port of Houston is reducing the free time given to refrigerated container imports at its marine terminals because shippers continue to leave reefer cargo past the port’s allotted grace period. The Board of Commissioners for the Port Houston Authority approved Monday a change to the terminal tariffs that will reduce the free time for a refrigerated container to four days from the current seven-day period in place for all containers. The policy change comes as reefer imports, while still a small part of the port’s business, grow faster than Houston’s dry cargo imports. The tariff change will take effect May 1. Reefer shippers will still have an additional three days of free time available if a container requires an inspection by US Customs and Border Protection or the Department of Agriculture (USDA). In asking for the tariff change, Chief Port Operations Officer Ryan Mariacher said the move would align Houston’s policies with how other ports handle refrigerated containers. “This supports the shippers that need to expedite the handling of these commodity types,” Mariacher said. “We want to be a transit facility, not a storage facility.” Mariacher did not say how long refrigerated containers are dwelling at the port. But in June 2025, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/port-houston-implementing-reefer-dwell-fees-to-encourage-container-flow-6030417">when the port approved a higher rate of demurrage on refrigerated boxes</a>, he said some shippers had been leaving their reefer shipments at the port for a week or more. <h3>Reefer imports growing </h3>Refrigerated imports into Houston appear to have been accelerating since 2024 after <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/houston-gets-usda-approval-to-handle-cold-treated-produce-cargoes-5703146">the port secured approval from the USDA to bring in cold-treated cargo without inspection</a>. Houston last year handled 83,354 TEUs in reefer containers, up 9.7% from 2024, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Overall imports of 1.93 million TEUs grew 1.5% year over year. Most of Houston’s growth in refrigerated imports comes from its north-south services. Imports from Guatemala, which is the port’s second-largest origin for reefer shipments behind China, saw a 9% gain in 2025 to 10,913 TEUs, led largely by bananas, according to PIERS. High US prices for beef have also led to a strong uptick in the port’s inbound reefer business. Refrigerated imports from Brazil rose 71% to 8,185 TEUs during 2025, led by meat and animal proteins. Colombia saw its refrigerated meat exports to Houston grow 56% in 2025 to 6,249 TEUs, PIERS data shows. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The Port of Houston is reducing the free time given to refrigerated container imports at its marine terminals because shippers continue to leave reefer cargo past the port’s allotted grace period. The Board of Commissioners for the Port Houston Authority approved Monday a change to the terminal tariffs that will reduce the free time for a refrigerated container to four days from the current seven-day period in place for all containers. The policy change comes as reefer imports, while still a small part of the port’s business, grow faster than Houston’s dry cargo imports. The tariff change will take effect May 1. Reefer shippers will still have an additional three days of free time available if a container requires an inspection by US Customs and Border Protection or the Department of Agriculture (USDA). In asking for the tariff change, Chief Port Operations Officer Ryan Mariacher said the move would align Houston’s policies with how other ports handle refrigerated containers. “This supports the shippers that need to expedite the handling of these commodity types,” Mariacher said. “We want to be a transit facility, not a storage facility.” Mariacher did not say how long refrigerated containers are dwelling at the port. But in June 2025, when the port approved a higher rate of demurrage on refrigerated boxes , he said some shippers had been leaving their reefer shipments at the port for a week or more. Reefer imports growing Refrigerated imports into Houston appear to have been accelerating since 2024 after the port secured approval from the USDA to bring in cold-treated cargo without inspection . Houston last year handled 83,354 TEUs in reefer containers, up 9.7% from 2024, according to PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Overall imports of 1.93 million TEUs grew 1.5% year over year. Most of Houston’s growth in refrigerated imports comes from its north-south services. Imports from Guatemala, which is the port’s second-largest origin for reefer shipments behind China, saw a 9% gain in 2025 to 10,913 TEUs, led largely by bananas, according to PIERS. High US prices for beef have also led to a strong uptick in the port’s inbound reefer business. Refrigerated imports from Brazil rose 71% to 8,185 TEUs during 2025, led by meat and animal proteins. Colombia saw its refrigerated meat exports to Houston grow 56% in 2025 to 6,249 TEUs, PIERS data shows. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Cool Cargo News

North American ports

Houston cuts free time on reefer importers amid ongoing high dwells

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is the latest disruption to global shipping, highlighting once again that the market would rather ride out the problem than pay for the resilience that could bring relief, analyst Lars Jensen writes.</div>

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is the latest disruption to global shipping, highlighting once again that the market would rather ride out the problem than pay for the resilience that could bring relief, analyst Lars Jensen writes.

<div class="phx-topic">The turmoil caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has brought the notion of resilience in shipping back to the forefront. In part by people asking, seemingly rhetorical, why the industry did not prepare to be more resilient, and in part why the governments in the region did not prepare for more resilience. Add to this the somewhat fanciful, and quite impractical, notion of digging a canal from the Arabian Sea straight through UAE and Oman into the Persian Gulf itself. On the surface, the matter of resilience appears to be a reasonable question, but upon closer inspection, it turns out to be anything but. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6191694_0.1.jpg"></img></div>When it comes to resilience in the supply chain, this is not a new discussion at all. I wrote about this very topic <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/global-supply-chain-must-weigh-balance-between-efficiency-resilience-5250599">in the Journal of Commerce in March 2021</a>. At the time, the context was the disruptions stemming from the pandemic, which had given rise to calls for more resilience in the supply chain. At the time, I pointed out that supply chains had evolved this way because efficiency is the core driver behind everything — efficiency in terms of lower costs, leaner inventories, higher utilization of assets such as vessels, terminals, trucks etc. Still, within these confines, the supply chain was typically quite resilient on a day-to-day basis, with the main vulnerability being more systemic risks. As I pointed out at the time, there are plenty of known systemic risks for which there is no willingness to pay for added resilience. To underscore this point, I listed a range of examples of such systemic risks where there is no willingness to pay for added resilience, including: a major earthquake devastating key port and inland infrastructure in a major port location, the outbreak of war closing critical transit corridors for shipping, a pandemic, tensions between the US and China in the South China Sea, and a cyber-attack. In the five years since that was written, we saw the grounding of the Ever Given in 2021, the Red Sea vessel attacks that began impacting Suez Canal transits in late 2023, drought restrictions along the Panama Canal in 2023–24, and now the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The risks still stand. And it appears that not a lot is being done to bolster the industry’s resilience against these. <h3>The cost hesitancy of resilience </h3>During the height of the pandemic freight rate spikes, I came across plenty of shippers willing to focus more on long-term resilience and tone down short-term cost savings. As the market then normalized during 2023, I also experienced most of this willingness to disappear entirely. It briefly reawakened in the early part of the Red Sea crisis in 2024, but as supply chains normalized on the longer route around southern Africa, this once more abated. In such an environment, there is no business case for offering more resilient supply chains. Container lines were ridiculed in late 2023 for having, once again, created significant overcapacity. No one wanted to pay for this as resilience, and carriers became loss-making — only to see this overcapacity be sorely needed due to the Red Sea crisis. If we look at Hormuz as an example, how should we have made the supply chains more resilient? Sure, pipelines could be built for oil products, but how about the container shipping sector? This would require massive overland capacity to be built in terms of trucks and rail, a solution that under normal circumstances would be much too expensive compared with the shipping option, and hence would remain idle. I see critics focus on the governments in the Gulf states for not creating such resilience. And sure, in theory, they could have built and paid for this additional infrastructure to stand idle just in case. But if that is the argument, we can also ask why the US government does not build a large new container terminal to stand empty just in case we get an earthquake that incapacitates the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex. Of course, that is a rhetorical question. No one will be building a second Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex to stand empty just in case. And that is why the resilience many ask for in a time of crisis will often not be available. Lars Jensen is CEO and partner at Vespucci Maritime. Contact him at <a href="mailto:lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com">lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com</a>.</div>

The turmoil caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz has brought the notion of resilience in shipping back to the forefront. In part by people asking, seemingly rhetorical, why the industry did not prepare to be more resilient, and in part why the governments in the region did not prepare for more resilience. Add to this the somewhat fanciful, and quite impractical, notion of digging a canal from the Arabian Sea straight through UAE and Oman into the Persian Gulf itself. On the surface, the matter of resilience appears to be a reasonable question, but upon closer inspection, it turns out to be anything but. When it comes to resilience in the supply chain, this is not a new discussion at all. I wrote about this very topic in the Journal of Commerce in March 2021 . At the time, the context was the disruptions stemming from the pandemic, which had given rise to calls for more resilience in the supply chain. At the time, I pointed out that supply chains had evolved this way because efficiency is the core driver behind everything — efficiency in terms of lower costs, leaner inventories, higher utilization of assets such as vessels, terminals, trucks etc. Still, within these confines, the supply chain was typically quite resilient on a day-to-day basis, with the main vulnerability being more systemic risks. As I pointed out at the time, there are plenty of known systemic risks for which there is no willingness to pay for added resilience. To underscore this point, I listed a range of examples of such systemic risks where there is no willingness to pay for added resilience, including: a major earthquake devastating key port and inland infrastructure in a major port location, the outbreak of war closing critical transit corridors for shipping, a pandemic, tensions between the US and China in the South China Sea, and a cyber-attack. In the five years since that was written, we saw the grounding of the Ever Given in 2021, the Red Sea vessel attacks that began impacting Suez Canal transits in late 2023, drought restrictions along the Panama Canal in 2023–24, and now the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The risks still stand. And it appears that not a lot is being done to bolster the industry’s resilience against these. The cost hesitancy of resilience During the height of the pandemic freight rate spikes, I came across plenty of shippers willing to focus more on long-term resilience and tone down short-term cost savings. As the market then normalized during 2023, I also experienced most of this willingness to disappear entirely. It briefly reawakened in the early part of the Red Sea crisis in 2024, but as supply chains normalized on the longer route around southern Africa, this once more abated. In such an environment, there is no business case for offering more resilient supply chains. Container lines were ridiculed in late 2023 for having, once again, created significant overcapacity. No one wanted to pay for this as resilience, and carriers became loss-making — only to see this overcapacity be sorely needed due to the Red Sea crisis. If we look at Hormuz as an example, how should we have made the supply chains more resilient? Sure, pipelines could be built for oil products, but how about the container shipping sector? This would require massive overland capacity to be built in terms of trucks and rail, a solution that under normal circumstances would be much too expensive compared with the shipping option, and hence would remain idle. I see critics focus on the governments in the Gulf states for not creating such resilience. And sure, in theory, they could have built and paid for this additional infrastructure to stand idle just in case. But if that is the argument, we can also ask why the US government does not build a large new container terminal to stand empty just in case we get an earthquake that incapacitates the Los Angeles-Long Beach port complex. Of course, that is a rhetorical question. No one will be building a second Los Angeles/Long Beach port complex to stand empty just in case. And that is why the resilience many ask for in a time of crisis will often not be available. Lars Jensen is CEO and partner at Vespucci Maritime. Contact him at lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com .

New shipping crisis brings ‘resilience’ question to the fore again

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off a major source of global resin supply, teeing up US production to fill in some of the gap.</div>

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz has cut off a major source of global resin supply, teeing up US production to fill in some of the gap.

<div class="phx-topic">US resin exports have ticked higher as the war in the Middle East shuts off the largest source of global plastics supply. The sustainability of the export demand, though, hinges largely on the war’s duration and the capacity of North American producers to make more resin.Export container bookings for resins hit 6,191 on March 16, according to maritime visibility provider Vizion. That compares with the nearly 3,500 to 4,500 daily bookings typically made throughout all of 2026. The first week of March saw the highest number of export resin bookings, 22,653, since the last week of January. Most bookings occur during weekdays.The bookings come as Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have cut off the Middle East’s resin producers from world markets. The Middle East accounts for 15% of global polyethylene supply, the most widely traded type of resin, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. The disruption in the Gulf has already sent US polyethylene prices higher. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, said Thursday that US prices have tripled since Feb. 25, now hovering between $1,268 and $1,290 per metric ton, depending on the grade. “The sharp price increases reflected a fundamental shift in global supply dynamics, as the US emerged as the primary supplier of polyethylene ... following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Platts said. Asia and Europe are the most affected by the disruption in Middle East resin exports, Shruthi Vangipuram, an analyst with Wood Mackenzie, told the Journal of Commerce. While both regions have their own resin production, they depend on crude oil feedstocks that have also become more expensive. “Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been impacted the most,” she said. “Producers in the region are struggling to secure feedstock and operating rates in these countries have been severely curtailed.” Vangipuram estimates that resin plants in Asia and Europe are running at only about 70% of their production capacity due to higher prices for feedstock crude oil. In contrast, US producers are running at about 90% utilization. She said US producers can delay maintenance to keep production levels high through the second quarter, but that would still not fill the gap in global demand. “We can flex to 95%, 98% utilization, but it depends on which markets it makes sense to sell to,” Vangipuram said. <h3>Pricing arbitrage favors trans-Atlantic</h3>Export capacity from the US to Asia is ample, according to an executive of a third-party logistics provider, who estimated that backhaul utilization for most ocean carriers hovers near 50%. Spot rates for dry freight to Asia from the US Gulf, which dominates resin exports, are currently running between $500 and $700 for a standard-sized container, while shipping a 20-foot container used primarily for resins runs about 80% of that rate. Trans-Atlantic rates have also been stable, hovering near $1,100 for a 20-foot container from the US Gulf to Northern Europe, according to Xeneta. The rate for shipping a 20-foot container out of the Southeast Atlantic ports has moved higher since the start of the year, going from just over $700 to $757 this week, Xeneta said. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-alliance-one-rework-trans-atlantic-services-remove-ships-6169751">Carriers are removing ships and port calls from trans-Atlantic services</a>, tightening up some of the capacity in that market. Outbound US cargo does not face any significant delays with bookings available about two weeks out. The real risk for shippers will be in fuel surcharges that are being applied on global trades due to the Middle East war, as well as a potential general rate increase in April. Outside of freight rates and vessel space, Vangipuram said the real driver for US exports will be the direction of local pricing. Asian prices will still need to move higher to attract more US imports. With a four- to six-week lead time for imports, Asian buyers will need to see the conflict drag out before buying from the US. Europe, which is the second-biggest market for US resins after South America, has seen its benchmark polyethylene prices rise by one-third since the end of February. Vangipuram said Europe would likely be the first market to see additional US imports thanks to the much shorter voyage time and the sharper price move. “The arbitrage works out better in the Atlantic than to Asia because of freight rates and shorter shipping times,” Vangipuram said. “We may not see the volume from the US make it into those markets that would appear to need it most.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US resin exports have ticked higher as the war in the Middle East shuts off the largest source of global plastics supply. The sustainability of the export demand, though, hinges largely on the war’s duration and the capacity of North American producers to make more resin. Export container bookings for resins hit 6,191 on March 16, according to maritime visibility provider Vizion. That compares with the nearly 3,500 to 4,500 daily bookings typically made throughout all of 2026. The first week of March saw the highest number of export resin bookings, 22,653, since the last week of January. Most bookings occur during weekdays. The bookings come as Iran’s attacks on commercial shipping through the Strait of Hormuz have cut off the Middle East’s resin producers from world markets. The Middle East accounts for 15% of global polyethylene supply, the most widely traded type of resin, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence. The disruption in the Gulf has already sent US polyethylene prices higher. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, said Thursday that US prices have tripled since Feb. 25, now hovering between $1,268 and $1,290 per metric ton, depending on the grade. “The sharp price increases reflected a fundamental shift in global supply dynamics, as the US emerged as the primary supplier of polyethylene ... following the closure of the Strait of Hormuz,” Platts said. Asia and Europe are the most affected by the disruption in Middle East resin exports, Shruthi Vangipuram, an analyst with Wood Mackenzie, told the Journal of Commerce. While both regions have their own resin production, they depend on crude oil feedstocks that have also become more expensive. “Southeast Asia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have been impacted the most,” she said. “Producers in the region are struggling to secure feedstock and operating rates in these countries have been severely curtailed.” Vangipuram estimates that resin plants in Asia and Europe are running at only about 70% of their production capacity due to higher prices for feedstock crude oil. In contrast, US producers are running at about 90% utilization. She said US producers can delay maintenance to keep production levels high through the second quarter, but that would still not fill the gap in global demand. “We can flex to 95%, 98% utilization, but it depends on which markets it makes sense to sell to,” Vangipuram said. Pricing arbitrage favors trans-Atlantic Export capacity from the US to Asia is ample, according to an executive of a third-party logistics provider, who estimated that backhaul utilization for most ocean carriers hovers near 50%. Spot rates for dry freight to Asia from the US Gulf, which dominates resin exports, are currently running between $500 and $700 for a standard-sized container, while shipping a 20-foot container used primarily for resins runs about 80% of that rate. Trans-Atlantic rates have also been stable, hovering near $1,100 for a 20-foot container from the US Gulf to Northern Europe, according to Xeneta. The rate for shipping a 20-foot container out of the Southeast Atlantic ports has moved higher since the start of the year, going from just over $700 to $757 this week, Xeneta said. Carriers are removing ships and port calls from trans-Atlantic services , tightening up some of the capacity in that market. Outbound US cargo does not face any significant delays with bookings available about two weeks out. The real risk for shippers will be in fuel surcharges that are being applied on global trades due to the Middle East war, as well as a potential general rate increase in April. Outside of freight rates and vessel space, Vangipuram said the real driver for US exports will be the direction of local pricing. Asian prices will still need to move higher to attract more US imports. With a four- to six-week lead time for imports, Asian buyers will need to see the conflict drag out before buying from the US. Europe, which is the second-biggest market for US resins after South America, has seen its benchmark polyethylene prices rise by one-third since the end of February. Vangipuram said Europe would likely be the first market to see additional US imports thanks to the much shorter voyage time and the sharper price move. “The arbitrage works out better in the Atlantic than to Asia because of freight rates and shorter shipping times,” Vangipuram said. “We may not see the volume from the US make it into those markets that would appear to need it most.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

US resin shippers look to tap new customers amid Iran war

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The latest quarterly results show that FedEx’s less-than-truckload division is struggling with lackluster industrial demand, but a change in strategy after a planned June spinoff could provide different results.</div>

The latest quarterly results show that FedEx’s less-than-truckload division is struggling with lackluster industrial demand, but a change in strategy after a planned June spinoff could provide different results.

<div class="phx-topic">Revenue and shipments in FedEx’s less-than-truckload (LTL) division fell during its fiscal third quarter amid the ongoing sluggish US industrial economy as the parent company prepares for a planned spinoff in June of the LTL business. Revenue for FedEx Freight dropped 5% year over year to $1.99 billion between December and February, the company’s fiscal third quarter, while shipments were down 6%. Revenue per shipment, however, increased 1% year over year. “It’s a broader LTL market that we’re in, and there’s nothing necessarily unique about our volumes,” Marshall Witt, CFO of FedEx Freight, said on an earnings call late Thursday. “We need to continue to improve our yield growth ... we will expect to continue to improve our customer experience ... we expect to continue to be disciplined in our pricing contract renewals.” Fourth-quarter and full fiscal-year revenue for LTL will likely be down by low-single-digit percentages year over year, according to the company. More attention on the call, however, was paid to the FedEx Freight spinoff and an investor day on April 8, during which the company will outline a new strategy for LTL focused on yield over volume. As a standalone company, FedEx Freight might reject low-margin or unprofitable freight from shippers who previously used LTL as part of a larger commercial relationship with FedEx’s parcel, logistics, and airfreight divisions. The freight division has hired its sales and operation teams, created new computer systems and secured a $3.7 billion debt offering in January. “We look at those as good cost incurrences primarily because they’re related to building our IT infrastructure,” Witt said. “Also building out our talent, and that represents both folks that are coming on board externally and folks that are transitioning over from FedEx Corporation. Having those folks and platforms being built now and being ready to address the spin off and the standalone of FedEx Freight is a positive outcome for us.” FedEx also pointed to the possibility that the growth in data centers will generate freight volumes. “We know that as data centers expand, that yes, there will be some LTL business for my friends over at [FedEx] Freight, but in addition, there is going to be some parcel business,” Brie Carere, FedEx’s chief commercial officer, said on Thursday’s call. <h3>Small encouraging signs </h3>There are some small encouraging signs for the LTL industry overall. The Institute for Supply Chain Management reports that the Purchasing Managers’ Index for manufacturing was in expansion territory in February, at 52.4, for a second consecutive month after spending most of 2025 in contraction territory. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ccfbe9dd-30e0-4ab0-b6bd-a4eed3591ca5"></dynamic-object></div>In an intra-quarter update, ArcBest, parent of LTL provider ABF Freight System, reported that revenue per day was up 1% and shipments were up 2% year over year in January and February combined. XPO reported shipments per day grew 3% year over year in February, although it did not disclose revenue. But Old Dominion Freight Line reported revenue per day declined 3.3% and shipments fell 7% in February. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Revenue and shipments in FedEx’s less-than-truckload (LTL) division fell during its fiscal third quarter amid the ongoing sluggish US industrial economy as the parent company prepares for a planned spinoff in June of the LTL business. Revenue for FedEx Freight dropped 5% year over year to $1.99 billion between December and February, the company’s fiscal third quarter, while shipments were down 6%. Revenue per shipment, however, increased 1% year over year. “It’s a broader LTL market that we’re in, and there’s nothing necessarily unique about our volumes,” Marshall Witt, CFO of FedEx Freight, said on an earnings call late Thursday. “We need to continue to improve our yield growth ... we will expect to continue to improve our customer experience ... we expect to continue to be disciplined in our pricing contract renewals.” Fourth-quarter and full fiscal-year revenue for LTL will likely be down by low-single-digit percentages year over year, according to the company. More attention on the call, however, was paid to the FedEx Freight spinoff and an investor day on April 8, during which the company will outline a new strategy for LTL focused on yield over volume. As a standalone company, FedEx Freight might reject low-margin or unprofitable freight from shippers who previously used LTL as part of a larger commercial relationship with FedEx’s parcel, logistics, and airfreight divisions. The freight division has hired its sales and operation teams, created new computer systems and secured a $3.7 billion debt offering in January. “We look at those as good cost incurrences primarily because they’re related to building our IT infrastructure,” Witt said. “Also building out our talent, and that represents both folks that are coming on board externally and folks that are transitioning over from FedEx Corporation. Having those folks and platforms being built now and being ready to address the spin off and the standalone of FedEx Freight is a positive outcome for us.” FedEx also pointed to the possibility that the growth in data centers will generate freight volumes. “We know that as data centers expand, that yes, there will be some LTL business for my friends over at [FedEx] Freight, but in addition, there is going to be some parcel business,” Brie Carere, FedEx’s chief commercial officer, said on Thursday’s call. Small encouraging signs There are some small encouraging signs for the LTL industry overall. The Institute for Supply Chain Management reports that the Purchasing Managers’ Index for manufacturing was in expansion territory in February, at 52.4, for a second consecutive month after spending most of 2025 in contraction territory. In an intra-quarter update, ArcBest, parent of LTL provider ABF Freight System, reported that revenue per day was up 1% and shipments were up 2% year over year in January and February combined. XPO reported shipments per day grew 3% year over year in February, although it did not disclose revenue. But Old Dominion Freight Line reported revenue per day declined 3.3% and shipments fell 7% in February. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Surface

FedEx Freight battles weak US industrial sector ahead of spinoff

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Truckload

Truck brokers

Trucking labor

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 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The Journal of Commerce’s trucking news and analysis encompasses full truckload, less-than-truckload (LTL), private fleet trucking, refrigerated trucking, regulation, drayage, and transloading. Reporting centers on pricing, volume demand, capacity, labor, regulation, and service levels in US and Canadian trucking networks.

Flatbed

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

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

Rail News

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

FMC rejects requests by carriers to waive waiting period for Middle East surcharges

Houston cuts free time on reefer importers amid ongoing high dwells

New shipping crisis brings ‘resilience’ question to the fore again