<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">CMA CGM’s decision to no longer directly serve Port Tampa Bay leaves the Florida port with two direct Asia container services. </div>

CMA CGM’s decision to no longer directly serve Port Tampa Bay leaves the Florida port with two direct Asia container services.

3638116_FI.png

<div>Port Tampa Bay is losing a direct Asia service operated by CMA CGM Group, with the container line saying its customers will still have access to the Florida port via its alliance partner Cosco Shipping.After Aug. 5, customers of the service, which began February 2019, will be served by OCEAN Alliance member Cosco. The other remaining direct weekly Asian service calling Tampa is operated by Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Mediterranean Shipping Co., and Maersk Line. The other OCEAN alliance members include Evergreen Line and OOCL. In a statement confirming the discontinuation of the service, CMA CGM said it’s “continuously adapting...

Port Tampa Bay is losing a direct Asia service operated by CMA CGM Group, with the container line saying its customers will still have access to the Florida port via its alliance partner Cosco Shipping. After Aug. 5, customers of the service, which began February 2019, will be served by OCEAN Alliance member Cosco. The other remaining direct weekly Asian service calling Tampa is operated by Zim Integrated Shipping Services, Mediterranean Shipping Co., and Maersk Line. The other OCEAN alliance members include Evergreen Line and OOCL. In a statement confirming the discontinuation of the service, CMA CGM said it’s “continuously adapting its trade network to the market conditions” to best serve customers. The move comes after CMA CGM announced July 6 that it would simplify its trans-Pacific trade network , with its namesake carrier being the sole commercial carrier and sister carrier APL focusing on government business. “Port Tampa Bay understands that ocean carriers continue to deal with the ongoing impact of COVID-19 on the global economy,” Raul Alfonso, Port Tampa Bay’s executive vice president and chief commercial officer, told JOC.com. “Rationalization of alliances’ services, rotation [port calls], and adjusting vessel capacity utilization are all ways to cope with such economies of scale.” Alfonso added that CMA CGM’s shift of cargo from the Pacific Express 3 (PEX 3) to Cosco’s Gulf of Mexico (GME) service will allow the former’s customers to “maintain,” or in certain cases improve, their current transit times. Both the PEX3 and GME loops offer approximately 35-day transits from Shanghai to Tampa Bay, according to the carriers’ online service schedules.

Container lines

CMA CGM ending direct Asian service to Port Tampa Bay

<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. 

Feature image

<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 or Department of Agriculture. 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 on 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 or Department of Agriculture. 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 on 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 to 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 LA/LB 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 to 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 LA/LB 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.

Supply chain

Maritime

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 .

Trucking News

Surface

FedEx Freight battles weak US industrial sector ahead of spinoff

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The move comes just days after a joint venture between the two companies was selected as the preferred bidder to develop a $1.8 billion container terminal in Da Nang.</div>

The move comes just days after a joint venture between the two companies was selected as the preferred bidder to develop a $1.8 billion container terminal in Da Nang.

<div class="phx-topic">APM Terminals has taken a 49% stake in Hateco Haiphong International Container Terminal (HHIT) in northern Vietnam, Maersk’s port affiliate said Friday, cementing its partnership with Vietnam’s Hateco Group after helping to develop the $450 million facility. Financial terms were not disclosed. The move comes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/apm-terminals-to-build-18-billion-terminal-in-da-nang-6187751">days after a joint venture between the two companies was selected</a> as the preferred bidder to develop a $1.8 billion container terminal in Da Nang, about 350 miles south of Haiphong, and 13 months after the 2.2 million-TEU capacity HHIT became operational. HHIT said the two-berth facility, covering berths 5 and 6 at Haiphong’s Lach Huyen port, has already exceeded initial throughput targets after handling 808,000 TEUs in the 11 months after it became operational last year. APM Terminals said its involvement in developing HHIT included shared best practices on safety, port automation, the use of artificial intelligence and process optimization, and decarbonization. That has helped the terminal achieve an average of 30 container moves per hour and cut truck turnaround times to 16 minutes compared with a market average of 35 minutes, HHIT said. “Since we started operating, we can already see that we are delivering on the highest berth productivities in the Port of Haiphong and have set new records for the automated gate operations as well,” Hateco Group Chairman Tran Van Ky said in a statement announcing APM Terminals’ minority stake. “We are looking forward to working closely with APM Terminals in the years to come to further optimize the terminal operations to the benefit of our customers.” Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

APM Terminals has taken a 49% stake in Hateco Haiphong International Container Terminal (HHIT) in northern Vietnam, Maersk’s port affiliate said Friday, cementing its partnership with Vietnam’s Hateco Group after helping to develop the $450 million facility. Financial terms were not disclosed. The move comes days after a joint venture between the two companies was selected as the preferred bidder to develop a $1.8 billion container terminal in Da Nang, about 350 miles south of Haiphong, and 13 months after the 2.2 million-TEU capacity HHIT became operational. HHIT said the two-berth facility, covering berths 5 and 6 at Haiphong’s Lach Huyen port, has already exceeded initial throughput targets after handling 808,000 TEUs in the 11 months after it became operational last year. APM Terminals said its involvement in developing HHIT included shared best practices on safety, port automation, the use of artificial intelligence and process optimization, and decarbonization. That has helped the terminal achieve an average of 30 container moves per hour and cut truck turnaround times to 16 minutes compared with a market average of 35 minutes, HHIT said. “Since we started operating, we can already see that we are delivering on the highest berth productivities in the Port of Haiphong and have set new records for the automated gate operations as well,” Hateco Group Chairman Tran Van Ky said in a statement announcing APM Terminals’ minority stake. “We are looking forward to working closely with APM Terminals in the years to come to further optimize the terminal operations to the benefit of our customers.” Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

International ports

Container Shipping News

APMT takes 49% stake in Haiphong’s HHIT terminal in northern Vietnam

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The latest container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage includes the movement of containerized cargo handled by marine terminals and container ports, depots, container lines, drayage, consignees, importers and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers. The Journal of Commerce's container shipping news includes news from the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South America trades, and intra-Asia trades.

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

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

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce is the industry’s source for maritime news and analysis about ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, global shipping ports, shipping technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage tracks the movement of containerized cargo — from origin to destination — handled by marine terminals in the US and abroad, depots, container ports, container lines, drayage, consignees and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers, as well as pricing, capacity, volume and reliability on the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South American and intra-Asia trades.

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

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Houston cuts free time on reefer importers amid ongoing high dwells

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

US resin shippers look to tap new customers amid Iran war