<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Clothing imports rose in 2021, but shippers are struggling to get time-sensitive fashion items onto store shelves due to delays getting into US ports and inconsistent intermodal rail service.</div>

Clothing imports rose in 2021, but shippers are struggling to get time-sensitive fashion items onto store shelves due to delays getting into US ports and inconsistent intermodal rail service.

3683649_FI.jpg

<div>Clothing retailers and wholesalers in the US increased their imports sharply last year and expect demand to remain robust this year, but persistent port congestion and fears of further disruption during <a>West Coast longshore labor negotiations</a> are forcing shippers to carry more inventory and pull orders from Asian suppliers forward.Importers worried about stockouts due to cargo stuck on the water, at marine terminals, or at inland rail ramps are building inventories of back-to-school — and even holiday — apparel and footwear well in advance of the typical trans-Pacific peak season. That’s making it tougher for retailers to forecast how much...

Clothing retailers and wholesalers in the US increased their imports sharply last year and expect demand to remain robust this year, but persistent port congestion and fears of further disruption during West Coast longshore labor negotiations are forcing shippers to carry more inventory and pull orders from Asian suppliers forward. Importers worried about stockouts due to cargo stuck on the water, at marine terminals, or at inland rail ramps are building inventories of back-to-school — and even holiday — apparel and footwear well in advance of the typical trans-Pacific peak season. That’s making it tougher for retailers to forecast how much of a given product they should order and putting additional pressure on their supply chains, according to Nate Herman, senior vice president of policy with the American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA). “The holiday season accounts for over 50 percent of sales, so trying to deal with the shipping crisis while making sure that we have product in for the holidays has created difficult situations,” Herman told JOC.com. “Companies are trying to bring in many products early, but also trying to guess what that hot product will be. It’s also created a whole litany of inventory issues trying to store these products, and there are warehouse capacity issues all around the US.” Click to enlarge . Skyrocketing shipping costs — with spot trans-Pacific ocean freight pricing up nearly 150 percent year over year in early May, according to benchmarking firm Xeneta — are also a major concern for apparel and footwear companies, many of which were already operating on razor-thin margins, Herman said. Some companies have raised prices on products to offset the sharp rise in freight rates, but fierce competition among the vast array of brick-and-mortar and online retailers doesn’t allow much room to recoup transportation costs. “There’s a very low barrier to entry into the industry, and e-commerce has made that barrier practically nonexistent over the last 10 years. There are so many players, and so many options to buy clothes and shoes,” Herman explained. Total US clothing imports jumped 18 percent to 1.87 million TEU in 2021, according to PIERS, a sister product of JOC.com within IHS Markit, now part of S&P Global. Last year’s growth came on the back of an 11.4 percent decline in 2020, leaving 2021 volumes 4.6 percent ahead of 2019, the last full year prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Multimodal delays An apparel and footwear importer who asked not to be named said the company placed orders with Asian manufacturers for holiday season merchandise in January and February, rather than in the spring, to compensate for widespread disruption throughout the trans-Pacific supply chain. Vessels are lining up outside major US cargo ports, and transit times for containers headed inland are being further stretched by inconsistent international intermodal rail service. As a result, shippers are faced with a choice between potentially lengthy delays for boxes moving by rail — whether transloaded or intact inland point intermodal (IPI) — and the extra costs of transporting cargo by truck. “J.B. Hunt used to be able to run their containers from Los Angeles to Chicago in four to five days, but now it’s double that,” the apparel shipper said. “But I’ve seen ocean containers on IPI take 20 or 21 days to get to Chicago. I’ve seen some IPI trains sit in Southern California for two or three weeks, just on their own, and they’re just not moving.” Those choices are made based on the product, the shipper said. For seasonal products that need to arrive within a given time frame, the company hires team trucks able to move cargo from the Port of Los Angeles to Chicago in two days, while other products are transloaded into domestic intermodal containers or moved intact based on how quickly they need to arrive. Closer to home? Some clothing importers are looking to diversify their sourcing to reduce risk and reliance on manufacturing in Asia and a highly disrupted trans-Pacific trade. A second apparel and footwear shipper who asked not to be identified said purchasing more products from Central America has drastically reduced the company’s port-to-port transit times and overall transportation costs. “It’s like four days on the water from Honduras versus two weeks on the water from Asia, so it’s a lot quicker,” the shipper explained. “The cost of trans-Pacific vessels is not going back to where we were pre-pandemic. The new normal on rates will be higher, so it’s a lot cheaper for transportation to use Central America.” Shifting sourcing from Asia to Central America has its own risks, however, due primarily to geopolitical instability and a higher incidence of severe weather events such as earthquakes and hurricanes, the shipper said. As a member of the Coalition for Economic Partnerships in the Americas, a group of companies and associations dedicated to promoting regional trade and job growth formed in November 2021, AAFA is also encouraging its members to consider bringing production back to the western hemisphere. “If you want to try and get everybody out of China, which is what everybody in Washington, DC, is saying, and encourage companies to come to this hemisphere, then this is a good option,” Herman said. “You dramatically shorten your shipping time as well in the process and hopefully address some of the shipping crisis.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @arijashe .

Supply chain

Top US Shippers: Apparel retailers ordering early to avoid trans-Pac delays

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Having tentatively returned to Red Sea transits, multipurpose and heavy-lift vessels are again shunning the route in favor of the safer, but longer, passage around southern Africa.</div>

Having tentatively returned to Red Sea transits, multipurpose and heavy-lift vessels are again shunning the route in favor of the safer, but longer, passage around southern Africa.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The number of multipurpose and heavy-lift (MPV/HL) vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait has slumped of late after a spring rally — a direct consequence of the renewed attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea. Exclusive research of S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence data undertaken by the Journal of Commerce revealed a 21% drop in transits from mid-June to mid-July. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6052287_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The Houthi attacks on the bulk carriers MV Magic Seas and MV Eternity C on July 6-7 were the first significant attacks since November 2024 and the first sinking of a vessel since June 2024. The escalation occurs against the backdrop of ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, prompting shipowners to increasingly reroute vessels towards the Cape of Good Hope route around southern Africa. Transits through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait had started to pick up from a low of 48 in March 2025 to June’s high of 71 MPV/HLs, according to S&amp;P Global data. The ongoing issues in the region have impacted trade flows for the breakbulk and project cargo sector; indeed, over the last 10 months the type of MPV transiting the Red Sea has fundamentally changed. In the 2024 fourth quarter, 32% of these vessels were heavy-lift capable. That rose to 36% in Q1 and 42% in Q2, according to the data. This suggests that some project carriers had returned to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait route before the most recent attacks. The Journal of Commerce defines heavy-lift as vessels capable of a lift in excess of 240 mt safe working load (SWL). <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="50d2af41-b7bf-4444-ae65-2d9ac8f50290"></dynamic-object></div>Between Sept. 17 and Nov. 16, 2024, 173 vessels transited the strait, according to S&amp;P Global’s Maritime Intelligence Network data. Of those, 33% were operated by Chinese concerns, 19% Ethiopian, 6% French and 4% Turkish operators. From May 17-July 17, the number of transits dropped to 129, of which 44% were Chinese operators, 11% Ethiopian and 9% Turkish. <h3>Double-paying Suez transit fees </h3>Speaking to the Journal of Commerce, a shipper said that they were still chartering vessels to discharge in the Red Sea, but via entry through the Suez Canal at the Mediterranean end of the Red Sea. These northern Red Sea transits by the MPV/HL fleet increased after the November 2024 attacks and had started to fall away again prior to June 2025. Reaching the Red Sea via the Mediterranean increases costs for shippers as the carrier enters the canal southbound laden but exits northbound in ballast, paying Suez Canal transit fees twice. The shipper said that double canal fees were preferable than not being able to secure tonnage for projects in the region. Rerouting vessels around southern Africa adds an additional 10 to 14 days to Asia-Europe transits and takes capacity out of the market. Over 2025, the MPV/HL charter market responded to the lull in the Houthi attacks with freight rates dropping 5% from January’s high, according to Toepfer’s Multipurpose Index (TMI). However, the escalation of the Israel–Iran conflict in early June pushed rates up again as the market faced renewed concerns. Contact Susan Oatway on <a href="mailto:susan.oatway@spglobal.com">susan.oatway@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The number of multipurpose and heavy-lift (MPV/HL) vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait has slumped of late after a spring rally — a direct consequence of the renewed attacks on commercial ships in the Red Sea. Exclusive research of S&P Global Market Intelligence data undertaken by the Journal of Commerce revealed a 21% drop in transits from mid-June to mid-July. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. The Houthi attacks on the bulk carriers MV Magic Seas and MV Eternity C on July 6-7 were the first significant attacks since November 2024 and the first sinking of a vessel since June 2024. The escalation occurs against the backdrop of ongoing geopolitical tensions in the Middle East, prompting shipowners to increasingly reroute vessels towards the Cape of Good Hope route around southern Africa. Transits through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait had started to pick up from a low of 48 in March 2025 to June’s high of 71 MPV/HLs, according to S&P Global data. The ongoing issues in the region have impacted trade flows for the breakbulk and project cargo sector; indeed, over the last 10 months the type of MPV transiting the Red Sea has fundamentally changed. In the 2024 fourth quarter, 32% of these vessels were heavy-lift capable. That rose to 36% in Q1 and 42% in Q2, according to the data. This suggests that some project carriers had returned to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait route before the most recent attacks. The Journal of Commerce defines heavy-lift as vessels capable of a lift in excess of 240 mt safe working load (SWL). Between Sept. 17 and Nov. 16, 2024, 173 vessels transited the strait, according to S&P Global’s Maritime Intelligence Network data. Of those, 33% were operated by Chinese concerns, 19% Ethiopian, 6% French and 4% Turkish operators. From May 17-July 17, the number of transits dropped to 129, of which 44% were Chinese operators, 11% Ethiopian and 9% Turkish. Double-paying Suez transit fees Speaking to the Journal of Commerce, a shipper said that they were still chartering vessels to discharge in the Red Sea, but via entry through the Suez Canal at the Mediterranean end of the Red Sea. These northern Red Sea transits by the MPV/HL fleet increased after the November 2024 attacks and had started to fall away again prior to June 2025. Reaching the Red Sea via the Mediterranean increases costs for shippers as the carrier enters the canal southbound laden but exits northbound in ballast, paying Suez Canal transit fees twice. The shipper said that double canal fees were preferable than not being able to secure tonnage for projects in the region. Rerouting vessels around southern Africa adds an additional 10 to 14 days to Asia-Europe transits and takes capacity out of the market. Over 2025, the MPV/HL charter market responded to the lull in the Houthi attacks with freight rates dropping 5% from January’s high, according to Toepfer’s Multipurpose Index (TMI). However, the escalation of the Israel–Iran conflict in early June pushed rates up again as the market faced renewed concerns. Contact Susan Oatway on susan.oatway@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Breakbulk carriers

Heavy-haul transport

Asia-Europe

Breakbulk News

New Houthi attacks slash MPV northbound transits via Red Sea

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While the intermodal piece of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal could face some obstacles, UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise, writes Ted Prince.</div>

While the intermodal piece of the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal could face some obstacles, UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">There is no doubt that the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-looks-to-create-first-coast-to-coast-railroad-with-85-billion-ns-deal-6052288">Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger announced Tuesday</a> is a possible inflection point in the rail industry. But there are major issues to resolve. The most obvious is the US Surface Transportation Board’s de facto moratorium on big rail mergers that has been in place since 2001, which was prompted by the intended merger of BNSF and Canadian National. There has been so much discussion on the moratorium point already <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-confirms-in-advanced-discussions-on-deal-with-norfolk-southern-6049046">in the lead-up</a> to Tuesday’s announcement that I will pass on adding to it. Rather, I will focus on topics that have not been addressed — or, in my opinion, have been misunderstood. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6052287_0.1.jpg"></img></div>There seems to be an assumption that the merged transcontinental railroad will be based on intermodal. There is some underlying validity to this. Rail intermodal’s competitive advantage increases with the length of haul, and there is a great deal of rail traffic currently moving over the two railroads. However, I am not sure how we magically arrive at the enhanced operational efficiency that is expected. There are already “steel-wheel” blocks that move intact between western and eastern railroads. <ul><li>In the domestic market, these are limited to major origins such as southern California to New York, Harrisburg, Pa., and New England. The reason there aren’t many more is because there is either a lack of daily critical mass, or the complexity of loading multiple blocks is avoided. These lanes are often only in one direction because the return lacks critical mass, frequently because empties are repositioned to an intermediate market for reloading. </li><li>The intact international market does not have the daily density threshold; however, it still has the challenge of sufficient scale and constraints on the number of blocks loaded on-dock at origin. </li></ul>That is why so many point pairs are rehandled at network nodes. Chicago is predominant; however, Kansas City, Memphis, and Dallas also perform this unload-cross-town-reload function. One solution would be to de-market certain destinations (e.g., close Taylor, Allentown and Bethlehem to increase volume to Croxton and Harrisburg/Rutherford). This would generate scale, but pickup and delivery costs would increase. Intermodal routing is often about “closest to the pin” to minimize drayage. There is also a question as to whether these mega hubs would have the capacity to accommodate this new volume. To borrow an airline metaphor, it is unclear to me how the itinerary that involves a flight change today becomes a non-stop flight tomorrow. This issue is even greater for the “watershed volume” (e.g., Minneapolis to Pittsburgh) that has been out of intermodal’s reach for ages but is now expected to be converted from highway. There are ways to overcome these challenges, but they fall outside the boundaries of “the way we’ve always done it.” However, this might not be the obstacle it has always been. While UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have instilled core operating principles, they have also shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise. <h3>More deals to come? </h3>There are also commercial challenges. What happens to customers currently moving BNSF-NS or UP-CSX? Will they convert to the new UP-NS? And if so, how will that transpire? In some cases, this involves large volumes. Otherwise, this business will need to remain with the intermediate rehandling. Also, how much transcon volume is still left to convert? A great deal of the remaining volume involves cargo not conducive to intermodal, possibly due to multiple stops en route and restrictions on commodity and/or equipment type. The Burlington Northern merger with Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe in 1994 quickly led to UP and Southern Pacific in 1996. What will the fallout be now? Is BNSF-CSX a foregone conclusion, or might we see CN-CSX instead? Looking back at railroad merger history, it is not uncommon for a third railroad to force itself into a merger of two others. The New Haven achieved this in 1969 by forcing its way into Penn Central. Could we see one of the six Class I railroads pursue this strategy if it perceives itself to be a loser in this game of musical chairs? The possible combination of BNSF and JB Hunt has long been the industry’s equivalent of Elvis sightings. Could it now come true with BNSF avoiding an eastern rail partner in favor of merging with a virtual transcon? The possibilities are endless. It will certainly make for interesting discussions. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

There is no doubt that the Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern merger announced Tuesday is a possible inflection point in the rail industry. But there are major issues to resolve. The most obvious is the US Surface Transportation Board’s de facto moratorium on big rail mergers that has been in place since 2001, which was prompted by the intended merger of BNSF and Canadian National. There has been so much discussion on the moratorium point already in the lead-up to Tuesday’s announcement that I will pass on adding to it. Rather, I will focus on topics that have not been addressed — or, in my opinion, have been misunderstood. There seems to be an assumption that the merged transcontinental railroad will be based on intermodal. There is some underlying validity to this. Rail intermodal’s competitive advantage increases with the length of haul, and there is a great deal of rail traffic currently moving over the two railroads. However, I am not sure how we magically arrive at the enhanced operational efficiency that is expected. There are already “steel-wheel” blocks that move intact between western and eastern railroads. In the domestic market, these are limited to major origins such as southern California to New York, Harrisburg, Pa., and New England. The reason there aren’t many more is because there is either a lack of daily critical mass, or the complexity of loading multiple blocks is avoided. These lanes are often only in one direction because the return lacks critical mass, frequently because empties are repositioned to an intermediate market for reloading. The intact international market does not have the daily density threshold; however, it still has the challenge of sufficient scale and constraints on the number of blocks loaded on-dock at origin. That is why so many point pairs are rehandled at network nodes. Chicago is predominant; however, Kansas City, Memphis, and Dallas also perform this unload-cross-town-reload function. One solution would be to de-market certain destinations (e.g., close Taylor, Allentown and Bethlehem to increase volume to Croxton and Harrisburg/Rutherford). This would generate scale, but pickup and delivery costs would increase. Intermodal routing is often about “closest to the pin” to minimize drayage. There is also a question as to whether these mega hubs would have the capacity to accommodate this new volume. To borrow an airline metaphor, it is unclear to me how the itinerary that involves a flight change today becomes a non-stop flight tomorrow. This issue is even greater for the “watershed volume” (e.g., Minneapolis to Pittsburgh) that has been out of intermodal’s reach for ages but is now expected to be converted from highway. There are ways to overcome these challenges, but they fall outside the boundaries of “the way we’ve always done it.” However, this might not be the obstacle it has always been. While UP CEO Jim Vena and his team have instilled core operating principles, they have also shown a willingness to try new approaches in growing their intermodal franchise. More deals to come? There are also commercial challenges. What happens to customers currently moving BNSF-NS or UP-CSX? Will they convert to the new UP-NS? And if so, how will that transpire? In some cases, this involves large volumes. Otherwise, this business will need to remain with the intermediate rehandling. Also, how much transcon volume is still left to convert? A great deal of the remaining volume involves cargo not conducive to intermodal, possibly due to multiple stops en route and restrictions on commodity and/or equipment type. The Burlington Northern merger with Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe in 1994 quickly led to UP and Southern Pacific in 1996. What will the fallout be now? Is BNSF-CSX a foregone conclusion, or might we see CN-CSX instead? Looking back at railroad merger history, it is not uncommon for a third railroad to force itself into a merger of two others. The New Haven achieved this in 1969 by forcing its way into Penn Central. Could we see one of the six Class I railroads pursue this strategy if it perceives itself to be a loser in this game of musical chairs? The possible combination of BNSF and JB Hunt has long been the industry’s equivalent of Elvis sightings. Could it now come true with BNSF avoiding an eastern rail partner in favor of merging with a virtual transcon? The possibilities are endless. It will certainly make for interesting discussions. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Surface

Intermodal providers

North-American rail

Resolution of ‘major issues' now takes spotlight in UP-NS merger process

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Union Pacific said the acquisition of its smaller rival would improve service by reducing interchanges while taking market share from Canada’s Class I railroads and the truckload market.</div>

Union Pacific said the acquisition of its smaller rival would improve service by reducing interchanges while taking market share from Canada’s Class I railroads and the truckload market.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific said Tuesday it will acquire Norfolk Southern in an $85 billion cash-and-stock deal that will create the first transcontinental railroad in the US and take greater aim at Canadian rivals and the truckload market. UP said it will pay $320 per share for NS, which represents a 25% premium to the Class I railroad’s recent share price. NS shareholders will receive one share of UP and $88.82 in cash for each NS share. UP will fund the cash portion through new debt and its existing cash. The combined entity will be valued at $250 billion. The combined railroads will have over 50,000 miles of track across 43 states, with access to 100 ports, UP said. BNSF Railway, currently the largest Class I railroad, has about 32,500 miles of track. UP CEO Jim Vena said in a statement that a transcontinental railroad will create a more efficient network for shippers by reducing interchanges between the two carriers and offer customers more routing options for their goods. UP said rail markets such as the Ohio Valley and on both sides of the Mississippi River should see more efficient service by reducing interchanges. A US transcontinental railroad will also be able to compete more effectively with Canada’s Class I railroads that link to the Port of Vancouver and “win back US freight volume and American jobs,” UP said in the statement. Vena also touted the acquisition as creating “a more truck-competitive solution...that will decrease highway congestion, reducing wear-and-tear on taxpayer funded roads.” Still, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/up-confirms-in-advanced-discussions-on-deal-with-norfolk-southern-6049046">analysts differ on whether a transcontinental railroad</a> would ease congestion in cities such as Chicago, Memphis and Kansas City, where trains are broken up and containers exchanged between carriers. UP expects about $2.75 billion in cost savings through the merger. Vena will remain CEO of UP while NS Chief Executive Mark George will join the board of the combined railroad. UP expects to file for merger approval with the US Surface Transportation Board within six months. The transaction is expected to be completed in early 2027 and includes a $2.5 billion reverse termination fee. Federal regulators such as the STB have the authority to impose conditions on major mergers. Railroads must show that any deal serves the public interest, reduces highway congestion and promotes competition. Other railroads, as well as non-intermodal shippers, are likely to use the UP-NS deal as an opportunity to seek concessions from UP in exchange for public support. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific said Tuesday it will acquire Norfolk Southern in an $85 billion cash-and-stock deal that will create the first transcontinental railroad in the US and take greater aim at Canadian rivals and the truckload market. UP said it will pay $320 per share for NS, which represents a 25% premium to the Class I railroad’s recent share price. NS shareholders will receive one share of UP and $88.82 in cash for each NS share. UP will fund the cash portion through new debt and its existing cash. The combined entity will be valued at $250 billion. The combined railroads will have over 50,000 miles of track across 43 states, with access to 100 ports, UP said. BNSF Railway, currently the largest Class I railroad, has about 32,500 miles of track. UP CEO Jim Vena said in a statement that a transcontinental railroad will create a more efficient network for shippers by reducing interchanges between the two carriers and offer customers more routing options for their goods. UP said rail markets such as the Ohio Valley and on both sides of the Mississippi River should see more efficient service by reducing interchanges. A US transcontinental railroad will also be able to compete more effectively with Canada’s Class I railroads that link to the Port of Vancouver and “win back US freight volume and American jobs,” UP said in the statement. Vena also touted the acquisition as creating “a more truck-competitive solution...that will decrease highway congestion, reducing wear-and-tear on taxpayer funded roads.” Still, analysts differ on whether a transcontinental railroad would ease congestion in cities such as Chicago, Memphis and Kansas City, where trains are broken up and containers exchanged between carriers. UP expects about $2.75 billion in cost savings through the merger. Vena will remain CEO of UP while NS Chief Executive Mark George will join the board of the combined railroad. UP expects to file for merger approval with the US Surface Transportation Board within six months. The transaction is expected to be completed in early 2027 and includes a $2.5 billion reverse termination fee. Federal regulators such as the STB have the authority to impose conditions on major mergers. Railroads must show that any deal serves the public interest, reduces highway congestion and promotes competition. Other railroads, as well as non-intermodal shippers, are likely to use the UP-NS deal as an opportunity to seek concessions from UP in exchange for public support. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Rail News

UP looks to create first coast-to-coast railroad with $85 billion NS deal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The deal is DAT’s third in seven months as the freight marketplace seeks to build a multifaceted and trusted truckload transactional platform.</div>

The deal is DAT’s third in seven months as the freight marketplace seeks to build a multifaceted and trusted truckload transactional platform.

<div class="phx-topic">DAT Freight &amp; Analytics said Monday it has acquired Flexport’s Convoy Platform product for an undisclosed amount as the spot market load board operator aims to give its broker customers more direct and automated transactional access to truckload carriers. The purchase of Convoy is DAT’s third acquisition in seven months, after deals in May for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dat-adds-in-house-factoring-services-with-latest-acquisition-6005462">payment and factoring vendor Outgo</a> and December for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/dat-acquires-trucker-tools-in-move-to-reduce-load-board-driver-churn-5907848">visibility provider Trucker Tools</a>, as it seeks to add more functionality to its load board business, the largest such marketplace in North America. It’s also the third owner of Convoy’s technology in less than two years, with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/convoy-acquisition-meant-to-serve-import-customer-truckload-demand-flexport-ceo-5201037">Flexport having acquired the technology platform</a> after the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/convoy-says-will-shut-operations-sell-off-technology-amid-market-downturn-5215523">demise of Convoy’s freight brokerage</a> business in the fall of 2023. For seller Flexport, the deal represents an apparent solid profit on its short-term ownership of the Convoy technology. A source who did not want to be identified pegged the Convoy sales price at about $250 million; Flexport acquired Convoy Platform for about $15 million. “We’re the biggest marketplace, but brokers and carriers want the most trusted and efficient marketplace, not just the biggest,” DAT CEO Jeff Clementz told the Journal of Commerce. “Trucker Tools helps with visibility and Outgo allows us to embed payments into the flow, which helps verify the broker and the carrier. “The last piece was an end-to-end automation platform, and we looked at building this ourselves, but we saw Convoy as having the best platform.” Clementz said the Convoy Platform will run in parallel with DAT One, the company’s core product for finding, booking and paying for loads, with both apps remaining operational until they’re merged over the next year. “This will be a free add-on service for customers,” he said. “Only when a broker is successful in automating a load will they pay a transaction fee. It’s free for carriers. We’re recommending they push all their loads into the platform, and those that can’t be automated will go through the DAT marketplace.” Clementz said existing DAT customers can onboard into Convoy in minutes using their DAT login credentials. About 98% of all loads in the Convoy Platform are automated, said Bill Driegert, executive vice president of trucking at Flexport, who is moving to DAT along with the Convoy team as part of the transaction. <h3>Straightforward migration </h3>In the first half of 2025, DAT’s executive team reached out to Driegert to explore the possibility of DAT acquiring the Convoy Platform, which had been <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/flexport-resurrects-convoy-truckload-tech-as-tool-for-drivers-brokers-5200185">resurrected in early 2024</a> as a standalone transactional app for carriers and brokers. While Convoy had <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/resurrected-convoy-app-gaining-traction-among-small-carriers-brokers-flexport-5214133">attracted 30,000 carriers onto the app</a>, it was constrained by being associated with Flexport and its own brokerage business, Driegert said. “We were still in the early stages of bringing this back to market, and DAT has this huge reach,” he said. “And Convoy has the end-to-end execution.” Clementz said DAT sees up to half of the currently brokered loads as being “ultimately automatable.” “But we think, as brokers get more efficient, that number rises,” he said. Clementz added that the similarities in technology setups between DAT and Convoy will make the migration of Convoy’s automation toward the broader DAT platform straightforward, especially because the Convoy team already has experience in moving its technology from Convoy’s defunct brokerage business to Flexport. Driegert, meanwhile, said the deal gives brokers “optionality.” “Brokers have <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/no-escaping-the-truckload-markets-inherent-fragmentation-for-convoy-5241498">different operating models</a>,” he said. “Those eager to automate and who love the latest tech have more options now.” <h3>Fraud prevention </h3>Driegert said the sale also “unencumbers” Flexport by allowing it to build out its brokerage while staying a partner with DAT. “I came to Flexport to build a brokerage,” said Driegert, who <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/uber-freights-driegert-jumps-to-flexport-to-lead-new-brokerage-unit-5216644">moved from Uber Freight to Flexport in 2023</a>. “When we acquired the Convoy platform, it was clear that selling to brokers would bring the highest value. So we focused on that strategic direction and backed away from building the brokerage.” Clementz also pointed to the Convoy Platform’s track record in virtually eliminating fraud and fraud-enabled theft through its app. One of the final focuses for Convoy’s brokerage before its demise was a rollout of tools intended to root out fraud to the benefit of its shipper-customers. “We have so much information on the transaction and the device,” Driegert said. “We have a level of detail you can’t get at arm’s length, in terms of behavioral patterns that we’re following and how they interact with the platform.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

DAT Freight & Analytics said Monday it has acquired Flexport’s Convoy Platform product for an undisclosed amount as the spot market load board operator aims to give its broker customers more direct and automated transactional access to truckload carriers. The purchase of Convoy is DAT’s third acquisition in seven months, after deals in May for payment and factoring vendor Outgo and December for visibility provider Trucker Tools , as it seeks to add more functionality to its load board business, the largest such marketplace in North America. It’s also the third owner of Convoy’s technology in less than two years, with Flexport having acquired the technology platform after the demise of Convoy’s freight brokerage business in the fall of 2023. For seller Flexport, the deal represents an apparent solid profit on its short-term ownership of the Convoy technology. A source who did not want to be identified pegged the Convoy sales price at about $250 million; Flexport acquired Convoy Platform for about $15 million. “We’re the biggest marketplace, but brokers and carriers want the most trusted and efficient marketplace, not just the biggest,” DAT CEO Jeff Clementz told the Journal of Commerce. “Trucker Tools helps with visibility and Outgo allows us to embed payments into the flow, which helps verify the broker and the carrier. “The last piece was an end-to-end automation platform, and we looked at building this ourselves, but we saw Convoy as having the best platform.” Clementz said the Convoy Platform will run in parallel with DAT One, the company’s core product for finding, booking and paying for loads, with both apps remaining operational until they’re merged over the next year. “This will be a free add-on service for customers,” he said. “Only when a broker is successful in automating a load will they pay a transaction fee. It’s free for carriers. We’re recommending they push all their loads into the platform, and those that can’t be automated will go through the DAT marketplace.” Clementz said existing DAT customers can onboard into Convoy in minutes using their DAT login credentials. About 98% of all loads in the Convoy Platform are automated, said Bill Driegert, executive vice president of trucking at Flexport, who is moving to DAT along with the Convoy team as part of the transaction. Straightforward migration In the first half of 2025, DAT’s executive team reached out to Driegert to explore the possibility of DAT acquiring the Convoy Platform, which had been resurrected in early 2024 as a standalone transactional app for carriers and brokers. While Convoy had attracted 30,000 carriers onto the app , it was constrained by being associated with Flexport and its own brokerage business, Driegert said. “We were still in the early stages of bringing this back to market, and DAT has this huge reach,” he said. “And Convoy has the end-to-end execution.” Clementz said DAT sees up to half of the currently brokered loads as being “ultimately automatable.” “But we think, as brokers get more efficient, that number rises,” he said. Clementz added that the similarities in technology setups between DAT and Convoy will make the migration of Convoy’s automation toward the broader DAT platform straightforward, especially because the Convoy team already has experience in moving its technology from Convoy’s defunct brokerage business to Flexport. Driegert, meanwhile, said the deal gives brokers “optionality.” “Brokers have different operating models ,” he said. “Those eager to automate and who love the latest tech have more options now.” Fraud prevention Driegert said the sale also “unencumbers” Flexport by allowing it to build out its brokerage while staying a partner with DAT. “I came to Flexport to build a brokerage,” said Driegert, who moved from Uber Freight to Flexport in 2023 . “When we acquired the Convoy platform, it was clear that selling to brokers would bring the highest value. So we focused on that strategic direction and backed away from building the brokerage.” Clementz also pointed to the Convoy Platform’s track record in virtually eliminating fraud and fraud-enabled theft through its app. One of the final focuses for Convoy’s brokerage before its demise was a rollout of tools intended to root out fraud to the benefit of its shipper-customers. “We have so much information on the transaction and the device,” Driegert said. “We have a level of detail you can’t get at arm’s length, in terms of behavioral patterns that we’re following and how they interact with the platform.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Logistics Technology News

DAT acquiring Convoy automation platform from Flexport

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The company did not disclose the identity of the potential Chinese investor in the $23 billion deal, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings.</div>

The company did not disclose the identity of the potential Chinese investor in the $23 billion deal, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings.

<div class="phx-topic">CK Hutchison is in talks with a “major strategic investor from China” to join the BlackRock-Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) consortium in their planned $23 billion purchase of Hutchison’s non-China terminals, the Hong Kong conglomerate confirmed Monday. Hutchison, whose businesses include ports, telecoms, real estate and retail, did not provide details on the Chinese investor, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings. Cosco’s potential involvement follows speculation the Chinese government was pushing for a Chinese shipping group to join the BlackRock-TiL group as a condition of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/beijing-issues-warning-over-hutchisons-proposed-sale-of-panama-ports-company-5962910">Beijing giving regulatory approval to the deal</a>, announced in March. TiL is the terminals division of Gianluigi Aponte’s Mediterranean Shipping Co. The deal would also make MSC/TiL the world’s biggest terminal operator, with throughput volumes of more than 130 million TEUs, according to Drewry. Hutchison’s comments about Chinese involvement were made in a statement to the Hong Kong stock exchange following the weekend expiry of the 145-day exclusive negotiating period Hutchison had with BlackRock-TiL. Despite the end of the exclusivity period, Hutchison said it “remains in discussions with members of the consortium with a view to inviting a major strategic investor from [China] to join as a significant member of the consortium.” “Changes to the membership of the consortium and the structure of the transaction [will be needed for the deal] to be capable of being approved by all relevant authorities,” Hutchison added in the statement. It gave no deadline for the changes to be finalized. Instead, the company said it “intends to allow such time as is required for such discussions to achieve” the alterations. <h3>Balancing act to keep Trump administration happy </h3>There were to be two agreements under terms of the initial deal, one covering the sale of Hutchison’s Panama ports and the second involving the rest of its global ports network, excluding those in China. There is speculation the restructured deal will see BlackRock-TiL buying Hutchison Port Holdings’ 90% stake in the Panama Port Company, with BlackRock and its Global Investment Partners as the lead investor and no Chinese involvement. That would assuage Trump administration criticism that China influences cargo and ship movements through HPH’s ownership of Balboa and Cristobal ports at either end of the Panama Canal. The claims, made soon after Donald Trump became president in January, have been rejected by China. Instead, the Chinese investor would join BlackRock-TiL in the purchase of Hutchison’s 80% stake in HPH, which owns and operates 199 berths at terminals in 43 ports in 23 countries. The remaining 20% of HPH is owned by Singapore’s PSA International. Analysts say Chinese involvement, especially through Cosco Shipping Ports, could intensify regulatory scrutiny, particularly in Europe, where Hutchison, TiL/MSC and Cosco all operate terminals in Rotterdam and Antwerp. Eleanor Hadland, lead analyst for ports and terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/big-hutchison-deal-could-reshuffle-global-ports-network-drewry-5958162">previously told the Journal of Commerce</a> that TiL/MSC would likely have to sell off some terminals in Rotterdam, Le Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and Egypt as a condition of the deal being approved by competition watchdogs. If Cosco joins the consortium there could be added scrutiny from regulators in South Korea and the Middle East due to overlapping terminal interests by HPH and Cosco in Busan, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, one analyst told the Journal of Commerce. HPH, CK Hutchison, TiL, MSC and Cosco Shipping did not respond to the Journal of Commerce’s requests for comment Monday. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

CK Hutchison is in talks with a “major strategic investor from China” to join the BlackRock-Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) consortium in their planned $23 billion purchase of Hutchison’s non-China terminals, the Hong Kong conglomerate confirmed Monday. Hutchison, whose businesses include ports, telecoms, real estate and retail, did not provide details on the Chinese investor, although it is widely thought to be Cosco Shipping Holdings. Cosco’s potential involvement follows speculation the Chinese government was pushing for a Chinese shipping group to join the BlackRock-TiL group as a condition of Beijing giving regulatory approval to the deal , announced in March. TiL is the terminals division of Gianluigi Aponte’s Mediterranean Shipping Co. The deal would also make MSC/TiL the world’s biggest terminal operator, with throughput volumes of more than 130 million TEUs, according to Drewry. Hutchison’s comments about Chinese involvement were made in a statement to the Hong Kong stock exchange following the weekend expiry of the 145-day exclusive negotiating period Hutchison had with BlackRock-TiL. Despite the end of the exclusivity period, Hutchison said it “remains in discussions with members of the consortium with a view to inviting a major strategic investor from [China] to join as a significant member of the consortium.” “Changes to the membership of the consortium and the structure of the transaction [will be needed for the deal] to be capable of being approved by all relevant authorities,” Hutchison added in the statement. It gave no deadline for the changes to be finalized. Instead, the company said it “intends to allow such time as is required for such discussions to achieve” the alterations. Balancing act to keep Trump administration happy There were to be two agreements under terms of the initial deal, one covering the sale of Hutchison’s Panama ports and the second involving the rest of its global ports network, excluding those in China. There is speculation the restructured deal will see BlackRock-TiL buying Hutchison Port Holdings’ 90% stake in the Panama Port Company, with BlackRock and its Global Investment Partners as the lead investor and no Chinese involvement. That would assuage Trump administration criticism that China influences cargo and ship movements through HPH’s ownership of Balboa and Cristobal ports at either end of the Panama Canal. The claims, made soon after Donald Trump became president in January, have been rejected by China. Instead, the Chinese investor would join BlackRock-TiL in the purchase of Hutchison’s 80% stake in HPH, which owns and operates 199 berths at terminals in 43 ports in 23 countries. The remaining 20% of HPH is owned by Singapore’s PSA International. Analysts say Chinese involvement, especially through Cosco Shipping Ports, could intensify regulatory scrutiny, particularly in Europe, where Hutchison, TiL/MSC and Cosco all operate terminals in Rotterdam and Antwerp. Eleanor Hadland, lead analyst for ports and terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, previously told the Journal of Commerce that TiL/MSC would likely have to sell off some terminals in Rotterdam, Le Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and Egypt as a condition of the deal being approved by competition watchdogs. If Cosco joins the consortium there could be added scrutiny from regulators in South Korea and the Middle East due to overlapping terminal interests by HPH and Cosco in Busan, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt, one analyst told the Journal of Commerce. HPH, CK Hutchison, TiL, MSC and Cosco Shipping did not respond to the Journal of Commerce’s requests for comment Monday. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Port News

Container lines

International ports

Hutchison confirms Chinese investor interest in BlackRock-TiL ports sale

Use code TPM25GW995 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

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of an annual Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STS20 at checkout to save 20% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code TPM25GW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

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

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 TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

New Houthi attacks slash MPV northbound transits via Red Sea

Resolution of ‘major issues' now takes spotlight in UP-NS merger process

UP looks to create first coast-to-coast railroad with $85 billion NS deal