<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container carriers in the slowing US import and export trades are exercising increased discipline, maintaining capacity levels rather than introducing new vessels in an attempt to secure a larger share of the market.</div>

Container carriers in the slowing US import and export trades are exercising increased discipline, maintaining capacity levels rather than introducing new vessels in an attempt to secure a larger share of the market.

3615861_FI.jpg

United States containerized import and export volume growth may be slowing, but major container lines are showing restraint in how much market share they chase via the introduction of new vessel capacity, as reflected by an analysis of data from PIERS and Alphaliner. France-based ocean carrier CMA CGM and subsidiary line APL handled the largest combined share of US containerized imports in the first half, with Geneva-based Mediterranean Shipping Co. closely following, according to PIERS, a sister product of JOC.com within IHS Markit. The top five carriers and common-owned companies maintained approximately the same share of US imports they had in the same 2018 period, at 62 percent, even as year-over-year volume growth slowed to 3.4 percent, from 7.8 percent last year. MSC was the fastest growing of the five largest carriers of US imports in the first half, increasing its volume 9.1 percent from the same 2018 period. Chinese state-run carrier Cosco Shipping and subsidiary OOCL were the only lines to report a decline in volume during the period, as its total US imports slid 4.9 percent year over year. Maersk Line led all carriers in terms of US exports, moving 14 percent of all outbound containers in the first half despite a 4 percent decline in volume from the first half of 2018, followed by MSC (13.4 percent), and CMA CGM and APL (12.3 percent). The top five carriers and common-owned companies increased their share of US exports in the first six months by 1.6 percentage points, to 60.3 percent. Among the top five carriers of US container exports, Ocean Network Express (ONE) — the merged container operations of Japan’s NYK Line, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, and “K” Line — saw the biggest gains, with first-half volume growth rebounding to 27.2 percent after a 9.8 percent loss the previous year. CMA CGM and APL saw the largest decline, with combined US export volume dropping 5.3 percent compared with a 3.4 percent increase in the first half of 2018. Rising global competition and Chinese retaliatory tariffs on US exports continued to drag on total outbound US volume, pulling the overall year-over-year growth rate down to 1.6 percent. By comparison, US export volumes increased 8.2 percent year over year in the first six months of 2016, before decelerating to a 7 percent growth rate in 2017 and a 2.9 percent rate in 2018. On the global stage, Maersk still leads the way in total capacity with an 18.9 percent share of the top-50 carrier fleet, according to maritime researcher Alphaliner, followed by MSC (16.3 percent), Cosco Shipping (13.3 percent), CMA CGM Group (12.3 percent), and Hapag-Lloyd (7.6 percent). Over the last few years, carrier consolidation via mergers and acquisitions has increased the total market share of the 10 largest fleet operators to 87.9 percent, with the top five operators now controlling 68.4 percent of deployed capacity. Unlike several of the other large global carriers, however, Maersk has repeatedly told investors it had no plans to expand its existing capacity at present. True to its word, Maersk’s orderbook accounts for no more than 28,700 TEU of capacity, or 0.7 percent of its total fleet of 4.18 million TEU. By contrast, ninth-largest carrier HMM of South Korea has 20 ships on order with an aggregate capacity equal to approximately 97 percent (396,000 TEU) of its existing 408,285-TEU fleet. “We maintain that we want to stay around 4 million TEU of deployed capacity,” Maersk Group CEO Søren Skou said during a conference call on Aug 15. “We will need some extra tonnage chartered in because we have ships retrofitting scrubbers and have invested a little more capacity in slow steaming this year. But we want to remain disciplined on capacity and stick to our guidance of 4 million deployed capacity, because it helps drive utilization up and unit costs down.” JOC.com’s quarterly Top 40 Container Carriers rankings are compiled using data from PIERS and Alphaliner. Volume and capacity figures are expressed in twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU). JOC Top 40 container carriers in US import trade lanes US IMPORT, January-June 2019 vs. January-June 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 in laden TEU The JOC Top 40 container carriers in the US import trade carried 99.7 percent of the 12 million TEU in the overall US import trade in the first half of 2019, a volume increase of 3.5 percent year over year and surge of 28.6 percent above 2015. The JOC Top 5 carriers garnered 62.2 percent of the US import trade lane, or 7.4 million TEU in the first half as volume rose 2.3 percent year over year, and spiked 26.7 percent above the same period in 2015. JANUARY-JUNE US Imports Percent Volume Change in Jan.-June 2019 World, U.S. Headquarters Market Share 2019 From 2015 From 2016 From 2017 From 2018 OCEAN CARRIER* 1 CMA CGM / APL Marseille; Norfolk, Va.Singapore; Scottsdale, Ariz. 13.1% 1,569,342 29.2% 26.6% 12.9% 3.5% 2 MSC Geneva; New York 12.8% 1,529,381 36.7% 30.5% 10.6% 9.1% 3 A.P. Moeller - Maersk * Copenhagen; Florham Park, N.J. 12.6% 1,507,274 33.7% 19.7% 11.2% 1.7% 4 Cosco Shipping / OOCL Shanghai; Secaucus, N.J.; Hong Kong; Salt Lake City 12.3% 1,474,929 18.1% 18.6% 6.3% -4.9% 5 Ocean Network Express Singapore 11.4% 1,365,676 17.0% 14.7% -4.4% 2.7% JOC Top 5 US Import Carriers 62.2% 62.2% JOC Top 5 US Import Carriers' Market Share 7,446,602 26.7% 22.0% 7.2% 2.3% 6 Hapag-Lloyd Hamburg; Piscataway, N.J. 8.5% 1,020,755 26.8% 11.6% 6.2% 4.7% 7 Evergreen Line Taipei; Jersey City, N.J. 8.4% 1,008,237 26.0% 25.5% 9.5% 13.5% 8 Yang Ming Line Keelung; Newark, N.J. 3.9% 467,637 16.3% 13.9% 3.5% 1.5% 9 HMM Seoul; Irving, Texas 3.9% 462,390 30.3% 36.2% -2.2% 0.5% 10 Zim Integrated Shipping Services Haifa; Norfolk, Va. 2.8% 330,726 51.1% 36.1% 48.1% 2.3% 11 SM Line Seoul 1.2% 143,854 245.0% 12.9% 12 Pacific International Lines Singapore, Long Beach, Ca. 1.1% 135,119 215.1% 111.0% 28.1% -1.3% 13 Dole Jacksonville, Fla. 1.1% 131,966 10.9% 2.6% 7.6% -0.3% 14 Seaboard Marine Miami, Fla 1.0% 118,767 22.9% 23.3% 18.0% 4.1% 15 Crowley Jacksonville, Fla. 0.7% 88,212 -9.2% -8.1% -18.0% -17.1% 16 Great White Fleet Antwerp; Cincinnati 0.6% 75,815 -5.6% 2.9% 5.4% 27.7% 17 Wan Hai Lines Taipei; Phoenix, Ariz. 0.6% 73,027 35.6% 9.5% 0.9% 0.9% 18 Del Monte Coral Gables, Fla. 0.5% 61,666 61.7% 63.6% 3.6% -0.4% 19 Matson Oakland 0.5% 54,928 -0.5% 23.2% 0.1% 11.7% 20 Independent Container Line Copenhagen; Florham Park, N.J. 0.4% 50,660 11.0% 22.3% 10.4% 6.0% 21 ACL/Grimaldi Group Naples; Westfield, N.J. 0.4% 50,591 36.2% 22.7% -0.7% 7.0% 22 Turkon Line Istanbul; Secaucus, N.J. 0.2% 23,995 37.3% 42.8% 7.8% 13.0% 23 King Ocean Services Doral, Fla. 0.2% 21,857 100.1% 55.7% 20.4% 7.2% 24 Agriculture Investment Export Inc. Tegucigalpa, Honduras; Port Everglades 0.2% 21,123 58.4% 25 Westwood Shipping Puyallup, Wash. 0.2% 19,860 -10.0% 18.4% -1.5% 9.4% 26 Tropical Shipping Riviera Beach, Fla. 0.2% 19,074 -10.6% -1.0% -7.9% 2.6% 27 TOTE Maritime Jacksonville, Fla. 0.2% 18,597 -0.2% 4.9% -11.1% -17.5% 28 Linea Peninsular Panama City, Fla. 0.1% 13,947 50.4% 61.3% 15.5% 24.4% 29 World Direct Shipping Palmetto, Fla. 0.1% 13,498 381.9% 233.2% 129.3% 138.4% 30 Seth Shipping Corp Victoria MAHE, SEYCHELLES 0.1% 13,447 10.5% -10.5% 75.7% 8.3% 31 Trailer Bridge Jacksonville, Fla. 0.1% 10,038 -8.4% -21.5% 4.0% -13.6% 32 Marine Express Santo Domingo, Dom. Rep. 0.1% 7,895 15.4% 23.0% 23.8% 3.2% 33 Antillean Lines Miami, Fla 0.1% 6,759 111.7% 92.9% 64.7% 32.3% 34 Eimskip Reykjavik; Virginia Beach 0.1% 6,610 140.6% 73.3% 63.2% 46.7% 35 Priority Ro-Ro Mayaguez, Puerto Rico 0.1% 6,241 55.2% 27.6% 1.1% -3.8% 36 Spliethoff Transport Amsterdam; Cleveland 0.0% 4,281 -10.5% 13.3% -7.3% 16.3% 37 Transgulf Miami, Fla 0.0% 3,656 137.1% 0.3% 38 Trans Global Shipping Inc Mississauga, Kanada 0.0% 3,335 -33.5% -20.7% -34.5% -19.3% 39 Polynesia Line San Rafaeal, Calif. 0.0% 2,719 -21.6% -15.9% -4.8% 5.0% 40 Seacor Fort Lauderdale 0.0% 2,468 96.7% 61.7% 57.6% 55.8% TOTAL JOC TOP 40 US IMPORT CARRIERS 99.7% 11,940,353 28.7% 23.6% 8.7% 3.5% TOTAL ALL US IMPORT CARRIERS 100.0% 11,981,215 18.7% 15.1% 7.8% 3.4% MARKET SHARE OF ALL JOC TOP 40 US IMPORT CARRIERS 99.7% *A.P. Moeller - Maersk includes Maersk Line, Sealand, and Hamburg Sud. Source: IHS Markit JOC Top 40 container carriers in US export trade lanes US EXPORT, January-June 2019 vs. January-June 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 in laden TEU The JOC Top 40 container carriers in the US export trade carried 99.7 percent of the 6.5 million TEU in the overall US export trade in the first half of 2019, a volume increase of 1.6 percent year over year and surge of 8.2 percent above 2015. The JOC Top 5 carriers garnered 60.3 percent of the US export trade lane, or 3.9 million TEU in the first half as volume rose 4.3 percent year over year, and spiked 32 percent above the same period in 2015. JANUARY-JUNE US Exports Percent Volume Change in Jan.-June 2019 World, U.S. Headquarters Market Share 2019 From 2015 From 2016 From 2017 From 2018 OCEAN CARRIER* 1 A.P. Moeller - Maersk* Copenhagen; Florham Park, N.J. 14.0% 920,799 22.2% 4.6% 4.3% -4.0% 2 MSC Geneva; New York 13.4% 877,507 15.5% 10.8% 6.4% 2.5% 3 CMA CGM / APL Marseille; Norfolk, Va.Singapore; Scottsdale, Ariz. 12.3% 809,010 18.8% 19.5% 3.4% -5.3% 4 Ocean Network Express Singapore 10.7% 699,791 2.2% 1.8% -9.8% 27.2% 5 Hapag-Lloyd Hamburg; Piscataway, N.J. 9.9% 646,238 32.0% 20.9% 21.8% 13.2% JOC Top 5 US Export Carriers 60.3% 60.3% JOC Top 5 US Export Carriers' Market Share 3,953,345 17.4% 10.7% 4.1% 4.3% 6 Cosco Shipping / OOCL Shanghai; Secaucus, N.J.; Hong Kong; Salt Lake City 9.4% 615,800 22.9% 20.6% -0.2% -4.5% 7 Evergreen Line Taipei; Jersey City, N.J. 6.3% 414,718 6.8% 16.9% -2.2% -5.3% 8 Yang Ming Line Keelung; Newark, N.J. 3.9% 256,103 33.7% 30.5% 6.6% 13.4% 9 HMM Seoul; Irving, Texas 3.6% 232,778 27.0% 28.9% -1.5% 2.6% 10 Crowley Jacksonville, Fla. 2.6% 167,749 -5.1% 0.5% 1.5% -4.6% 11 Seaboard Marine Miami 2.5% 161,513 4.3% 4.2% -2.2% -9.9% 12 Zim Integrated Shipping Services Haifa; Norfolk, Va. 2.2% 141,641 11.1% 4.4% 13.0% -8.8% 13 TOTE Maritime Jacksonville, Fla. 1.4% 89,774 15.2% 8.7% 2.7% -17.5% 14 Tropical Shipping Riviera Beach, Fla. 1.1% 71,872 10.7% 15.5% 6.1% 5.5% 15 SM Line Seoul 0.8% 52,029 291.6% 14.9% 16 King Ocean Services Doral, Fla. 0.7% 45,592 10.6% 13.6% 4.2% 4.8% 17 Dole Jacksonville, Fla. 0.6% 41,770 37.8% 66.3% 37.5% 18.2% 18 ACL/Grimaldi Group Naples; Westfield, N.J. 0.6% 38,499 1.8% 8.9% -10.1% -2.3% 19 Pacific International Lines Singapore, Long Beach, Ca. 0.5% 35,213 53.8% 43.8% 63.4% 74.4% 20 Independent Container Line Copenhagen; Florham Park, N.J. 0.5% 33,095 1.1% 0.6% 10.1% -3.3% 21 Trailer Bridge Jacksonville, Fla. 0.5% 30,282 -18.0% -5.5% -9.7% -14.2% 22 Wan Hai Lines Taipei; Phoenix, Ariz. 0.4% 26,637 214.4% 160.9% 112.6% 131.0% 23 Matson Oakland 0.4% 23,306 -9.4% -18.9% -10.1% -10.5% 24 Great White Fleet Antwerp; Cincinnati 0.3% 21,955 -50.9% -50.4% -44.1% -30.4% 25 Seacor Fort Lauderdale 0.2% 11,995 9799.9% 9.2% 1.3% 26 Antillean Lines Miami, Fla. 0.2% 11,544 16.4% 4.5% -2.4% -3.8% 27 Turkon Line Istanbul; Secaucus, N.J. 0.2% 10,812 -39.5% -34.5% -39.8% -35.0% 28 Hybur Shipping Cayman Islands; Port Everglades 0.1% 9,454 5.4% -20.7% -13.5% -13.6% 29 Westwood Shipping Puyallup, Wash. 0.1% 9,178 -9.8% 3.8% -1.4% -9.3% 30 Del Monte Coral Gables, Fla. 0.1% 5,608 1.0% -15.5% 6.4% 39.2% 31 Linea Peninsular Panama City, Fla. 0.1% 4,333 -45.6% -35.5% -19.5% -23.3% 32 Bermuda Container Line Hamilton, Bermuda; Newark, N.J. 0.1% 4,060 0.6% 8.1% -18.4% 3.4% 33 Polynesia Line San Rafaeal, Calif. 0.0% 2,450 -26.4% -32.4% -11.2% 1.4% 34 Somers Isles Shipping Fernandina Beach, Fla. 0.0% 2,239 29.2% 3.9% 9.6% 12.9% 35 NileDutch Rotterdam, Netherlands 0.0% 1,690 2314.7% 868.7% 36 Bermuda International Shipping Ltd. New York, N.Y, USA 0.0% 1,301 -30.0% -17.0% 14.2% -1.1% 37 ZEAMARINE Carrier GmbH Bremen, Germany 0.0% 1,252 38 Bahri Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 0.0% 1,155 -26.5% 2.1% 37.5% 50.4% 39 Schuyler Line Navigation Annapolis, Md. 0.0% 1,087 486.6% -41.6% -27.1% -40.3% 40 Universal Africa Lines Capelle aan den IJssel, Netherlands 0.0% 773 -74.7% -60.2% -45.2% -25.7% TOTAL JOC TOP 40 US EXPORT CARRIERS 99.7% 6,532,603 16.8% 13.3% 3.6% 1.8% TOTAL ALL US EXPORT CARRIERS 100.0% 6,555,239 8.2% 7.0% 2.9% 1.6% MARKET SHARE OF ALL JOC TOP 40 US EXPORT CARRIERS 99.7% *A.P. Moeller - Maersk includes Maersk Line, Sealand, and Hamburg Sud. Source: IHS Markit l

Container lines

JOC Top 40 container carrier rankings first half 2019

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The procedural reauthorization bill would provide funding for the agency for the next three fiscal years and add more outside expertise on ports and ocean carriers.</div>

The procedural reauthorization bill would provide funding for the agency for the next three fiscal years and add more outside expertise on ports and ocean carriers.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">A bill reauthorizing the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for another three years has been introduced in the House of Representatives, with the proposed legislation also adding more outside expertise to the agency for help on ocean carriers and ports and allowing for a complaint process covering freight indices. Representatives John Garamendi (D-Calif.), along with Dusty Johnson (R-SD), Mike Ezell (R-Miss.) and Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), introduced the bill last week to reauthorize the FMC through 2029, Garamendi’s office said in a statement Monday. The bill, which includes funding for the agency, aims to build on Garamendi and Johnson’s work on the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22), the statement said. “Ocean shipping is a critical aspect of America’s national, food and economic security,” Johnson said in the statement. That’s why our Federal Maritime Commission must be equipped with the proper tools to keep the industry operating above bar.” The reauthorization bill, which is a standard procedure for many federal agencies, outlines funding for the FMC through the next three fiscal years. The FMC’s budget will increase from $49.2 million in 2026 to $57 million in 2029, representing an average 5% annual increase over that time. Along with the funding, the bill includes <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-house-bills-keep-shipping-reform-effort-alive-even-after-freight-rate-plunge-5241752">tweaks to OSRA-22 that Garamendi and Johnson had been pushing for</a>. The reauthorization bill proposes the creation of a 13-member national port advisory committee. The committee would be comprised of five members from marine terminal operators, five from port authorities and three members of the longshore workforce. It also includes a new ocean carrier advisory committee with six members from ocean carriers and three from ocean forwarders or non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs). The bill also includes new regulations for freight index providers such as the Shanghai Shipping Exchange. OSRA-22 required that within three years of its passage, shipping exchanges be registered with the FMC and that their underlying rules and regulations for any service contracts using their indices be published. The new bill would also allow the FMC to investigate any complaints about “alleged incidents of market manipulation or other anticompetitive practices” by shipping exchanges. The legislation also extends the deadline for shipping exchanges to register with the FMC until two years after the reauthorization’s passage. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A bill reauthorizing the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) for another three years has been introduced in the House of Representatives, with the proposed legislation also adding more outside expertise to the agency for help on ocean carriers and ports and allowing for a complaint process covering freight indices. Representatives John Garamendi (D-Calif.), along with Dusty Johnson (R-SD), Mike Ezell (R-Miss.) and Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), introduced the bill last week to reauthorize the FMC through 2029, Garamendi’s office said in a statement Monday. The bill, which includes funding for the agency, aims to build on Garamendi and Johnson’s work on the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (OSRA-22), the statement said. “Ocean shipping is a critical aspect of America’s national, food and economic security,” Johnson said in the statement. That’s why our Federal Maritime Commission must be equipped with the proper tools to keep the industry operating above bar.” The reauthorization bill, which is a standard procedure for many federal agencies, outlines funding for the FMC through the next three fiscal years. The FMC’s budget will increase from $49.2 million in 2026 to $57 million in 2029, representing an average 5% annual increase over that time. Along with the funding, the bill includes tweaks to OSRA-22 that Garamendi and Johnson had been pushing for . The reauthorization bill proposes the creation of a 13-member national port advisory committee. The committee would be comprised of five members from marine terminal operators, five from port authorities and three members of the longshore workforce. It also includes a new ocean carrier advisory committee with six members from ocean carriers and three from ocean forwarders or non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs). The bill also includes new regulations for freight index providers such as the Shanghai Shipping Exchange. OSRA-22 required that within three years of its passage, shipping exchanges be registered with the FMC and that their underlying rules and regulations for any service contracts using their indices be published. The new bill would also allow the FMC to investigate any complaints about “alleged incidents of market manipulation or other anticompetitive practices” by shipping exchanges. The legislation also extends the deadline for shipping exchanges to register with the FMC until two years after the reauthorization’s passage. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Supply chain

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Congress seeks reauthorization of FMC through 2029

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Although spot rates from Asia to the US are dropping due to waning demand and overcapacity, the carrier is zeroing in on the e-commerce sector with its expedited transit times and the quick delivery of containers upon discharge from vessels. </div>

Although spot rates from Asia to the US are dropping due to waning demand and overcapacity, the carrier is zeroing in on the e-commerce sector with its expedited transit times and the quick delivery of containers upon discharge from vessels.

<div class="phx-topic">Hede Shipping in mid-July will launch its third expedited service from China to Los Angeles as the niche carrier seeks to expand its share of the trans-Pacific e-commerce market. Although spot rates from Asia to the US <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-sailing-into-slowdown-asia-europe-outlook-brightens-analysts-6031694">continue to drop due to waning demand and overcapacity in the overall market</a>, China-based Hede is zeroing in on the e-commerce sector with its expedited transit times and the quick delivery of containers upon discharge from vessels. “The e-commerce market is already there. It’s here to stay,” Roger Zhang, COO of Duke Shipping, the exclusive agent for Hede’s trans-Pacific services, told the Journal of Commerce Monday. Still, the new service that launches July 16 comes as e-commerce volumes, more typically the domain of the air cargo market, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/signs-of-air-cargo-recovery-on-the-trans-pacific-as-freighter-aircraft-return-6019701">are under pressure in the trans-Pacific</a>. The US on May 2 eliminated the duty-free exemption for low-value shipments from China valued at under $800. Less than two weeks later, the US reduced the so-called de minimis tariff on low-value imports from 120% to 54%. Items sent via post from China to the US will be charged a flat fee of $100, regardless of value. In 2024, e-commerce shipments accounted for about 50% of China-to-US air freight volume, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Since the duty-free status of low-value Chinese imports was revoked in May, the volume has declined. Hede’s new service initially will be biweekly, with a 14-day transit time from Nansha in South China to Los Angeles. Last year, Hede phased in two weekly services from Shanghai to Los Angeles covering northern and eastern China, Zhang said. The average transit time from China to Southern California for nonexpedited services ranges from 15 to 18 days. Average transit times from Shanghai to Los Angeles in May were 18 days, according to the latest data available from InforNexus. Hede’s new Nansha service will begin with three container ships ranging in size from 3,000 to 4,000 TEUs. Vessels operated by the alliance carriers are generally 10,000-TEU capacity or higher. At present, securing additional vessels is difficult, Zhang said. “The charter market is so hot,” he said. Hede competes in the expedited service space with Zim Integrated Shipping Services and CMA CGM. UWL offers an expedited service from Southeast Asia to Seattle. <h3>Expedited container handling landside in Los Angeles </h3>As with its first two trans-Pacific services, vessels will call at the West Basin Container Terminal (WBCT) in Los Angeles. Hede offers a wheeled operation at WBCT and a dedicated chassis pool. “Expedited containers are ready for pickup within 24 hours after discharge, offering a fast logistics solution for time-sensitive cargo,” Zhang said. The spot rate from Shanghai to Los Angeles as of last Thursday was $3,741 per FEU, down 27% week over week and 36% from June 5, according to Drewry. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Hede Shipping in mid-July will launch its third expedited service from China to Los Angeles as the niche carrier seeks to expand its share of the trans-Pacific e-commerce market. Although spot rates from Asia to the US continue to drop due to waning demand and overcapacity in the overall market , China-based Hede is zeroing in on the e-commerce sector with its expedited transit times and the quick delivery of containers upon discharge from vessels. “The e-commerce market is already there. It’s here to stay,” Roger Zhang, COO of Duke Shipping, the exclusive agent for Hede’s trans-Pacific services, told the Journal of Commerce Monday. Still, the new service that launches July 16 comes as e-commerce volumes, more typically the domain of the air cargo market, are under pressure in the trans-Pacific . The US on May 2 eliminated the duty-free exemption for low-value shipments from China valued at under $800. Less than two weeks later, the US reduced the so-called de minimis tariff on low-value imports from 120% to 54%. Items sent via post from China to the US will be charged a flat fee of $100, regardless of value. In 2024, e-commerce shipments accounted for about 50% of China-to-US air freight volume, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Since the duty-free status of low-value Chinese imports was revoked in May, the volume has declined. Hede’s new service initially will be biweekly, with a 14-day transit time from Nansha in South China to Los Angeles. Last year, Hede phased in two weekly services from Shanghai to Los Angeles covering northern and eastern China, Zhang said. The average transit time from China to Southern California for nonexpedited services ranges from 15 to 18 days. Average transit times from Shanghai to Los Angeles in May were 18 days, according to the latest data available from InforNexus. Hede’s new Nansha service will begin with three container ships ranging in size from 3,000 to 4,000 TEUs. Vessels operated by the alliance carriers are generally 10,000-TEU capacity or higher. At present, securing additional vessels is difficult, Zhang said. “The charter market is so hot,” he said. Hede competes in the expedited service space with Zim Integrated Shipping Services and CMA CGM. UWL offers an expedited service from Southeast Asia to Seattle. Expedited container handling landside in Los Angeles As with its first two trans-Pacific services, vessels will call at the West Basin Container Terminal (WBCT) in Los Angeles. Hede offers a wheeled operation at WBCT and a dedicated chassis pool. “Expedited containers are ready for pickup within 24 hours after discharge, offering a fast logistics solution for time-sensitive cargo,” Zhang said. The spot rate from Shanghai to Los Angeles as of last Thursday was $3,741 per FEU, down 27% week over week and 36% from June 5, according to Drewry. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Trans-Pacific

Hede Shipping to launch third expedited service from China to Los Angeles

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The groups want the US customs agency to rule that tariffs should be assessed according to a good’s origin port, not a secondary port through which it might have been transshipped. </div>

The groups want the US customs agency to rule that tariffs should be assessed according to a good’s origin port, not a secondary port through which it might have been transshipped.

<div class="phx-topic">A wide-ranging coalition of shipper and logistics service provider groups is urging US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to clarify whether goods transshipped before the Trump administration imposed tariffs on most nations on April 5 will be subject to those additional costs. At issue is whether goods that departed from their origin ports prior to the April 5 deadline, but were then transshipped at another port en route to their US destination ports, are subject to the tariffs, issued under the president’s authority through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a letter dated June 27, 94 shipper, customs broker and forwarder organizations, including the National Retail Federation, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Industrial Transportation League and National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, said communication between CBP and the trade community has offered “differing and sometimes contradictory responses.” The groups assert that previous CBP rulings dictate that relay legs or diversions of cargo shouldn’t impact the duty levels of goods, citing, in particular, the “sale for exportation standard” that underpins transactions between buyers and sellers of goods. “Numerous CBP rulings clarify that CBP relies on documentary evidence, such as invoices, purchase orders and/or bills of lading, when confirming that the ultimate destination for goods always was the United States and there was never a contingency of diversion,” the letter said. “The sale for exportation standard is consistent with and supports the finding that relay vessels originating in the initial country of export should meet the in-transit exception and eligibility should be based on the initial country of loading and export.” The transshipment issue has been a thorn in the side of importers trying to navigate the IEEPA tariffs, as CBP’s original guidance on April 4 wasn’t clear, according to a range of trade compliance experts. Subsequent guidance issued by CBP on May 15, which included a set of frequently asked questions, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scheduling-linked-to-10-tariffs-causing-confusion-angst-for-us-importers-6009281">included details on how transshipment would impact tariff exemptions</a>. <h3>Seeking better communication </h3>Import groups argue that transshipment is often out of the hands of the cargo owners responsible for paying tariffs. In the letter, the groups asked for guidance around the IEEPA tariffs to be conveyed via a consistent channel to avoid confusion among the trade community. “With the proliferation of communication channels, it is vital for the trade community to have one consistent and reliable repository of information regarding updates and changes to trade practices, policies and procedures,” the letter said. The groups also asked CBP and DHS to avoid cutting agency resources to execute and enforce changing tariffs. The IEEPA tariffs are currently caught up in a legal dispute, with the US Court of International Trade (CIT) <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/federal-court-ruling-blocking-tariffs-resets-shipping-outlook-6013402">ruling in late May</a> that President Donald Trump had overstepped his authority in using the act to justify his tariffs. But a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the CIT’s order, preserving the tariffs until a hearing on the case is held. The US Supreme Court on June 20 declined to fast track a case brought by two toy importers challenging the tariffs. Trade attorneys speaking at the American Association of Exporters and Importers in Washington, DC, on Friday said they expect the dual challenges to IEEPA tariffs — the CIT challenge and the toy importers’ case — to take a minimum of six months to be resolved, and likely longer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, said last week it will likely extend the reprieve on the reciprocal tariffs that are due to expire July 9 on all countries except China, Mexico and Canada. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A wide-ranging coalition of shipper and logistics service provider groups is urging US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to clarify whether goods transshipped before the Trump administration imposed tariffs on most nations on April 5 will be subject to those additional costs. At issue is whether goods that departed from their origin ports prior to the April 5 deadline, but were then transshipped at another port en route to their US destination ports, are subject to the tariffs, issued under the president’s authority through the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). In a letter dated June 27, 94 shipper, customs broker and forwarder organizations, including the National Retail Federation, Retail Industry Leaders Association, National Industrial Transportation League and National Customs Brokers and Forwarders Association of America, said communication between CBP and the trade community has offered “differing and sometimes contradictory responses.” The groups assert that previous CBP rulings dictate that relay legs or diversions of cargo shouldn’t impact the duty levels of goods, citing, in particular, the “sale for exportation standard” that underpins transactions between buyers and sellers of goods. “Numerous CBP rulings clarify that CBP relies on documentary evidence, such as invoices, purchase orders and/or bills of lading, when confirming that the ultimate destination for goods always was the United States and there was never a contingency of diversion,” the letter said. “The sale for exportation standard is consistent with and supports the finding that relay vessels originating in the initial country of export should meet the in-transit exception and eligibility should be based on the initial country of loading and export.” The transshipment issue has been a thorn in the side of importers trying to navigate the IEEPA tariffs, as CBP’s original guidance on April 4 wasn’t clear, according to a range of trade compliance experts. Subsequent guidance issued by CBP on May 15, which included a set of frequently asked questions, included details on how transshipment would impact tariff exemptions . Seeking better communication Import groups argue that transshipment is often out of the hands of the cargo owners responsible for paying tariffs. In the letter, the groups asked for guidance around the IEEPA tariffs to be conveyed via a consistent channel to avoid confusion among the trade community. “With the proliferation of communication channels, it is vital for the trade community to have one consistent and reliable repository of information regarding updates and changes to trade practices, policies and procedures,” the letter said. The groups also asked CBP and DHS to avoid cutting agency resources to execute and enforce changing tariffs. The IEEPA tariffs are currently caught up in a legal dispute, with the US Court of International Trade (CIT) ruling in late May that President Donald Trump had overstepped his authority in using the act to justify his tariffs. But a US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the CIT’s order, preserving the tariffs until a hearing on the case is held. The US Supreme Court on June 20 declined to fast track a case brought by two toy importers challenging the tariffs. Trade attorneys speaking at the American Association of Exporters and Importers in Washington, DC, on Friday said they expect the dual challenges to IEEPA tariffs — the CIT challenge and the toy importers’ case — to take a minimum of six months to be resolved, and likely longer. The Trump administration, meanwhile, said last week it will likely extend the reprieve on the reciprocal tariffs that are due to expire July 9 on all countries except China, Mexico and Canada. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Shipper groups urge CBP to clarify tariff transshipment confusion

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Global Cold Chain Alliance urged European leaders to recognize the importance of investment in logistics for the resilience of Europe’s food supply chain. </div>

The Global Cold Chain Alliance urged European leaders to recognize the importance of investment in logistics for the resilience of Europe’s food supply chain.

<div class="phx-topic">The European food supply chain should expect disruptions from weather, economics and geopolitics to increase in severity and frequency in the coming decades, according to roundtable talks between cold chain representatives and members of the European Parliament. The Global Cold Chain Alliance (GCCA) urged European leaders to recognize the importance of investment in logistics for the resilience of Europe’s food supply chain. That came as the two sides met in Brussels last week to address a series of growing challenges facing the temperature-controlled industry. “Recent geopolitical, economic, health and extreme weather crises have highlighted the vulnerabilities of Europe’s food supply chain, and we should expect major disruptions of this type to increase in severity and frequency over the coming decades,” Julie Hanson, director for Europe at GCCA, said in a statement following the roundtable. The European Parliament is developing its EU Food Stockpiling Strategy, which is expected to be released next week and is aimed at enhancing Europe's resilience and crisis management capabilities and includes plans for a Europe-wide approach to stockpiling food. GCCA’s short term policy focus following the roundtable will be on the strategy, particularly the extent to which the EU encourages member states to invest in intervention or crisis stocks. Some member states, such as Sweden, have this strategy in place but there are “significant complexities” in taking this approach Europe-wide. Hanson said dialogue with the lawmakers would continue as cold storage and refrigerated transportation were central to having a resilient European food chain, but were areas often overlooked by lawmakers. ”EU policy must support and incentivize investment into the facilities, vehicles, resources and skills that the cold chain needs for today and for the future,” she noted.Adrian-George Axinia, a member of the European Parliament, said tackling the vulnerabilities in the cold chain exposed by recent crises “is our key priority during the current legislature.” “Current economic challenges are lessons we should carefully acknowledge so that recovery and resilience occur based on well-implemented mechanisms,” he said in the GCCA statement following the roundtable. “We have to make sure any new crisis will have an immediate and efficient response,” he added. “Research, innovation and skills development have proven over the years to be successful paths to future solid foundations for better crisis response and management.” Key challenges discussed during the roundtable included the consideration of the cold chain as “critical infrastructure,” opportunities to remove barriers to investment, and the vital role of secure and free-flowing trade within the EU and with the world outside Europe. Another challenge are the incentives necessary to accelerate innovation, from energy generation and efficiency to automation and leading-edge equipment. <h3>Enduring tailwinds in logistics </h3>The European temperature-controlled logistics industry was the subject of a research report from OC&amp;C Strategy Consultants earlier this year that identified four strategic trends shaping the business. European outsourced cold storage capacity will grow 5% to 6% annually, supported by enduring tailwinds such as changing consumer consumption patterns, an increased need for external storage and growing demand for cost-effective frozen and chilled products. The research found food in Europe was being transported further, and that more food was being frozen, was being stocked longer to mitigate the risk of scarcity, and more food was being stored with external providers. A second trend was in the mergers and acquisitions area (M&amp;A). Over the past decade, the European cold storage market has seen significant M&amp;A activity, particularly driven by international platforms pursuing buy-and-build strategies. Yet 40% of market capacity still lies with independent operators, suggesting ample headroom for further consolidation, the OC&amp;C research found. As the food supply chain consolidates and globalizes, another trend identified in the research was that cold storage operators were facing heightened expectations from customers demanding higher service levels, supply chain visibility and alignment with environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards. Automation was the fourth trend identified by OC&amp;C. Its research found the cold storage market was a leading innovator in automation, partly driven by the scarcity and cost of labor. However, automation has been mostly implemented in areas where cold storage handled high and predictable volumes of relatively standard-sized pallets and uniform assortments that required little value-added services. “Going forward, we expect that automation will go beyond such situations and also address product categories that are less standard, predictable and uniform, such as retail products,” OC&amp;C noted in its research report, adding that the reach of automation in the cold chain will “considerably increase its reach in the coming decade.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The European food supply chain should expect disruptions from weather, economics and geopolitics to increase in severity and frequency in the coming decades, according to roundtable talks between cold chain representatives and members of the European Parliament. The Global Cold Chain Alliance (GCCA) urged European leaders to recognize the importance of investment in logistics for the resilience of Europe’s food supply chain. That came as the two sides met in Brussels last week to address a series of growing challenges facing the temperature-controlled industry. “Recent geopolitical, economic, health and extreme weather crises have highlighted the vulnerabilities of Europe’s food supply chain, and we should expect major disruptions of this type to increase in severity and frequency over the coming decades,” Julie Hanson, director for Europe at GCCA, said in a statement following the roundtable. The European Parliament is developing its EU Food Stockpiling Strategy, which is expected to be released next week and is aimed at enhancing Europe's resilience and crisis management capabilities and includes plans for a Europe-wide approach to stockpiling food. GCCA’s short term policy focus following the roundtable will be on the strategy, particularly the extent to which the EU encourages member states to invest in intervention or crisis stocks. Some member states, such as Sweden, have this strategy in place but there are “significant complexities” in taking this approach Europe-wide. Hanson said dialogue with the lawmakers would continue as cold storage and refrigerated transportation were central to having a resilient European food chain, but were areas often overlooked by lawmakers. ”EU policy must support and incentivize investment into the facilities, vehicles, resources and skills that the cold chain needs for today and for the future,” she noted. Adrian-George Axinia, a member of the European Parliament, said tackling the vulnerabilities in the cold chain exposed by recent crises “is our key priority during the current legislature.” “Current economic challenges are lessons we should carefully acknowledge so that recovery and resilience occur based on well-implemented mechanisms,” he said in the GCCA statement following the roundtable. “We have to make sure any new crisis will have an immediate and efficient response,” he added. “Research, innovation and skills development have proven over the years to be successful paths to future solid foundations for better crisis response and management.” Key challenges discussed during the roundtable included the consideration of the cold chain as “critical infrastructure,” opportunities to remove barriers to investment, and the vital role of secure and free-flowing trade within the EU and with the world outside Europe. Another challenge are the incentives necessary to accelerate innovation, from energy generation and efficiency to automation and leading-edge equipment. Enduring tailwinds in logistics The European temperature-controlled logistics industry was the subject of a research report from OC&C Strategy Consultants earlier this year that identified four strategic trends shaping the business. European outsourced cold storage capacity will grow 5% to 6% annually, supported by enduring tailwinds such as changing consumer consumption patterns, an increased need for external storage and growing demand for cost-effective frozen and chilled products. The research found food in Europe was being transported further, and that more food was being frozen, was being stocked longer to mitigate the risk of scarcity, and more food was being stored with external providers. A second trend was in the mergers and acquisitions area (M&A). Over the past decade, the European cold storage market has seen significant M&A activity, particularly driven by international platforms pursuing buy-and-build strategies. Yet 40% of market capacity still lies with independent operators, suggesting ample headroom for further consolidation, the OC&C research found. As the food supply chain consolidates and globalizes, another trend identified in the research was that cold storage operators were facing heightened expectations from customers demanding higher service levels, supply chain visibility and alignment with environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards. Automation was the fourth trend identified by OC&C. Its research found the cold storage market was a leading innovator in automation, partly driven by the scarcity and cost of labor. However, automation has been mostly implemented in areas where cold storage handled high and predictable volumes of relatively standard-sized pallets and uniform assortments that required little value-added services. “Going forward, we expect that automation will go beyond such situations and also address product categories that are less standard, predictable and uniform, such as retail products,” OC&C noted in its research report, adding that the reach of automation in the cold chain will “considerably increase its reach in the coming decade.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Cool Cargo News

Cold chain industry calls for greater support from European lawmakers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The trade group of ocean carriers is exempt from US antitrust scrutiny under an agreement it filed with the FMC five years ago, but the agency is now questioning that arrangement. </div>

The trade group of ocean carriers is exempt from US antitrust scrutiny under an agreement it filed with the FMC five years ago, but the agency is now questioning that arrangement.

<div class="phx-topic">The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is reviewing why the World Shipping Council should fall under US shipping law, a probe that could end the antitrust exemption for the WSC’s ocean carrier members to discuss cooperative matters. The FMC announced Thursday it was investigating the “working arrangement” between WSC’s members and whether that agreement violates US shipping law. Under US shipping law, ocean carriers or other regulated entities must file agreements to cooperate on commercial matters, exempting them from antitrust claims. WSC filed its cooperation agreement with the FMC in 2020, two decades after it was formed. The FMC ordered the WSC to show why the agency has “jurisdiction over the agreement and should not cancel the agreement as outside the agency’s jurisdiction.” The WSC agreement does not cover rates, operations, capacity or other strictly commercial matters. However, the group said it filed the agreement so members could discuss other issues such as safety, environmental and legal matters that could fall under FMC jurisdiction. But the FMC questioned that view in its Thursday order. The agency said the WSC may not be a regulated entity under the Shipping Act because it does not provide ocean transportation services. While its members are ocean carriers, within the confines of the agreement filed with the FMC, the members are not acting under their capacity as regulated carriers, the agency said. “An entity engaged only in the discussion and lobbying activities under the agreement would not qualify as an ‘ocean common carrier’ under the Shipping Act because it is performing none of the functions that define a common carrier,” the FMC said. The agency conceded that the WSC’s work on cargo screening may fall under the type of operational activities that are covered in FMC-filed agreements. But the agency said courts have previously ruled the WSC’s type of agreement “was meant as a narrow catch-all closely related to other explicitly operations-focused agreement categories” in US shipping law. While FMC agreements allow carriers and others to avoid antitrust scrutiny, “a trade association not involved in providing ocean transportation service does not appear to be engaged in the type of conduct Congress intended to immunize from scrutiny by antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs,” the FMC’s order said. <h3>Two months to reply</h3>The FMC has given the WSC two months to reply to the order, with the agency’s final decision expected next March. WSC said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that its 2020 agreement was filed “in accordance with its legal obligation (under US shipping law) and with the encouragement of the FMC.” “As a global trade association, the World Shipping Council takes its regulatory compliance responsibilities very seriously,” WSC said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a> </div>

The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is reviewing why the World Shipping Council should fall under US shipping law, a probe that could end the antitrust exemption for the WSC’s ocean carrier members to discuss cooperative matters. The FMC announced Thursday it was investigating the “working arrangement” between WSC’s members and whether that agreement violates US shipping law. Under US shipping law, ocean carriers or other regulated entities must file agreements to cooperate on commercial matters, exempting them from antitrust claims. WSC filed its cooperation agreement with the FMC in 2020, two decades after it was formed. The FMC ordered the WSC to show why the agency has “jurisdiction over the agreement and should not cancel the agreement as outside the agency’s jurisdiction.” The WSC agreement does not cover rates, operations, capacity or other strictly commercial matters. However, the group said it filed the agreement so members could discuss other issues such as safety, environmental and legal matters that could fall under FMC jurisdiction. But the FMC questioned that view in its Thursday order. The agency said the WSC may not be a regulated entity under the Shipping Act because it does not provide ocean transportation services. While its members are ocean carriers, within the confines of the agreement filed with the FMC, the members are not acting under their capacity as regulated carriers, the agency said. “An entity engaged only in the discussion and lobbying activities under the agreement would not qualify as an ‘ocean common carrier’ under the Shipping Act because it is performing none of the functions that define a common carrier,” the FMC said. The agency conceded that the WSC’s work on cargo screening may fall under the type of operational activities that are covered in FMC-filed agreements. But the agency said courts have previously ruled the WSC’s type of agreement “was meant as a narrow catch-all closely related to other explicitly operations-focused agreement categories” in US shipping law. While FMC agreements allow carriers and others to avoid antitrust scrutiny, “a trade association not involved in providing ocean transportation service does not appear to be engaged in the type of conduct Congress intended to immunize from scrutiny by antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs,” the FMC’s order said. Two months to reply The FMC has given the WSC two months to reply to the order, with the agency’s final decision expected next March. WSC said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that its 2020 agreement was filed “in accordance with its legal obligation (under US shipping law) and with the encouragement of the FMC.” “As a global trade association, the World Shipping Council takes its regulatory compliance responsibilities very seriously,” WSC said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

FMC probes legal standing of World Shipping Council agreement

Use code SKSGW995 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

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

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 SKSW595 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

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 SkSW25 at checkout to save 25% on a SIlver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSGW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSW25 to save 25% 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

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSW595 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 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.

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

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

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

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

Port News

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

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Congress seeks reauthorization of FMC through 2029

Hede Shipping to launch third expedited service from China to Los Angeles

Shipper groups urge CBP to clarify tariff transshipment confusion