<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Maersk Line and CMA CGM have gotten a lot of press for their plans to offer services many see as “new,” while others say this is just the next iteration of something carriers have tried to do for decades.</div>

Maersk Line and CMA CGM have gotten a lot of press for their plans to offer services many see as “new,” while others say this is just the next iteration of something carriers have tried to do for decades.

<div>“It’s déjà vu all over again” is one of the more famous quotes from Yogi Berra, longtime New York Yankee all-star and Hall of Fame catcher. The phrase can now be applied to the efforts of two major container lines as they enter the world of end-to-end logistics. Maersk Line and CMA CGM have gotten a lot of press for their plans to offer services many see as “new.” Others say this is just the next iteration of something carriers have tried to do for decades. Initially, a few ocean carriers created logistics arms to provide some services not covered...

“It’s déjà vu all over again” is one of the more famous quotes from Yogi Berra, longtime New York Yankee all-star and Hall of Fame catcher. The phrase can now be applied to the efforts of two major container lines as they enter the world of end-to-end logistics. Maersk Line and CMA CGM have gotten a lot of press for their plans to offer services many see as “new.” Others say this is just the next iteration of something carriers have tried to do for decades. Initially, a few ocean carriers created logistics arms to provide some services not covered under typical ocean services, such as consolidation, deconsolidation, garments on hangers, etc. They also served as alter egos that gave carriers an alternative to conference rates and rules in a manner that wouldn’t violate conference agreements or Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) regulations. It was meant to counter actions of other carriers who didn’t bother with such niceties and allowed them to compete for freight. Years ago, non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) and forwarders were a force in European trades but were very small factors in the trans-Pacific; conference carriers wouldn’t give them rates that would move cargo, absent some consolidated loads. As time passed, traditional NVOs grew. New carrier entrants used them as sales channels, providing them with rates that could be used to compete in segments of the market. In addition, global trade quadrupled between 1986 and 2006. But the logistics offerings of ocean carrier-affiliated firms didn’t benefit cargo interests to the same degree as the traditional independent forwarders or NVOs because of the carrier affiliation. The independent forwarder offered a wider variety of services and sailings from virtually all carriers in the trade, not just the sailings of a single carrier. Some of the carrier-affiliated companies did try to compete by changing names and offering more services and sailings of non-affiliated lines. However, it didn’t work enough to become a real profit center for the parent, and many entities were sold or shuttered over time. Now, Maersk is folding these services under one umbrella, making a complete logistics offering to the market. CMA CGM purchased CEVA Logistics, a well-known service provider that incurred significant financial losses over the years. More recently, rumor has it CMA CGM is looking at buying French-owned Geodis Logistics to further bolster its position in the market. The container shipping business model hasn’t worked as a profit-making enterprise despite a lot of effort and money being poured into the industry. In my 45-plus years in the industry directly and indirectly, the average rate of return is under 3 percent, and 75 percent of all carriers I have known and dealt with no longer exist. During the last 10 years, the industry made money only twice, in 2010 and 2017, and lost more than $30 billion over that span. The carriers have sought to improve financial returns, primarily through cost reductions and scale, and although it helped for a short time, it hasn’t prevailed. By comparison, some look at the results of forwarders and NVOs that make their financials public, and there seems to be a pattern of profitability with far less capital required. How closely is the data scrutinized and given a thorough analysis? I’m not sure because I haven’t taken the time to try and find out, but a recent call from a London-based private equity firm certainly got my attention. It was seeking general information about a very large forwarder/NVO, and its opening remark was, “We’ve looked very carefully at their financial data and want to understand why their gross margin has dropped so significantly in the last six years. We are told by others that it is due to competition, specifically by ocean carriers in the same business and by technology-based firms.” I told the company I wasn’t aware of the drop in gross margin of the firm, but the alleged rationale was erroneous. In regard to ocean carriers in the same industry, they have been a minor factor in the markets for decades, and the emphasis by the two large carriers is relatively new, certainly not six years in length. The same is true of technology-based new entrants; they are just that, new entrants. Both may impact the forwarder/NVO market over time but haven’t yet. I opined the real reason was ocean carrier pricing during that time; rates were depressed and had some wild swings. As forwarders/NVOs work on margins, it is one thing to make a 12 percent margin on a $2,000 container, but quite another to make 12 percent on a $1,000 to $1,200 container, especially for an entity moving a couple of million containers a year. I see a forwarder and NVO industry going through some of the changes that occurred with ocean carriers, with consolidation leading to a couple of handfuls of multibillion-dollar-a-year companies. The significant difference is that ocean carriers aren’t seeing a host of new entrants and significant amounts of capital being poured into virtually unknown and untested entities. And yet, two ocean carriers seem committed to entering that fray. This is their next attempt to improve profitability, but it comes with significant challenges and risks. Gary Ferrulli is CEO of Global Logistics & Transport Consulting. Contact him at gferrulli@globallogisticsandtransport.com .

Container Shipping News

As Yogi used to say...

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The push and pull of US support for decarbonization efforts puts a question mark over potential project cargo demand. </div>

The push and pull of US support for decarbonization efforts puts a question mark over potential project cargo demand.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The US government is sending mixed messages about support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, dialing up concerns about the segment’s future — and whether it will create a surge of project cargo and breakbulk activity. The Senate’s July 1 passage of the Congressional budget reconciliation bill on tax and spending — also known as President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — included the retention of a key tax credit for the CCS buildout. Lawmakers approved a version of the legislation that would preserve and expand the incentive known as the 45Q tax credit, which many later-stage CCS projects rely on. But the incentive’s rescue comes just weeks after the May 30 cancellation of 24 federal awards totaling nearly $3.7 billion for projects that primarily include CCS and decarbonization initiatives. The US Department of Energy pulled the awards after determining that the projects “failed to advance the energy needs of the American people.” Tip Meckel, senior research scientist at the Gulf Coast Carbon Center, told the Journal of Commerce that, although federal grants have been in the crosshairs, the future of CCS development depends even more so on the 45Q incentive. “I think overall there’s a sense that the impact on CCS may not be as big as everyone was thinking,” he said. While the $3.7 billion in funding had been approved for several projects that have yet to get off the ground, Meckel said the tax incentive is essential to projects that are well under way, and thus closer to the project cargo stage. “What passed in the Senate version of the bill was essentially what most people who support CCS were hoping for,” he said, explaining that the legislation maintains the tax credit writ large while increasing the credit’s value for certain projects. The bill will next advance to the House for final consideration. <h3>‘A foundational driver’ </h3>The 45Q credit was introduced in 2008 and increased significantly under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But the incentive has met both resistance and support from Republican lawmakers, including some who proposed changes to the Senate bill that would do away with the incentive altogether. Madelyn Morrison, director of government affairs for the Carbon Capture Coalition, said In a July 1 statement that the Senate’s approved version of the bill retains “mission-critical elements” of the tax credit. “45Q is the foundational market driver for domestic carbon management deployment, and we appreciate the Senate Finance Committee and key Senate champions for advocating for improvements that strengthen the credit’s long-term effectiveness,” Morrison said. Carbon capture and storage is a climate mitigation strategy backed by the oil and gas industry and has been of particular interest to liquefied natural gas (LNG) companies that are pursuing CCS to power their facilities. CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide emitted from power plants and factories and storing it underground. Carbon capture and storage projects could generate a significant source of project and breakbulk cargo to move and install components such as pipelines, chemical plant equipment, compressors, heavy machinery and raw materials. <h3>Pulled funding sends message </h3>While the July 1 Senate vote marked a win for CCS development, the $3.7 billion funding pullback signaled a shot across the bow. The federal cuts included nearly $332 million for ExxonMobil to develop a world-scale blue hydrogen and CCS plant at its refinery complex in Baytown, Texas, and $540 million for Calpine to retrofit its natural gas-fired power plants in Baytown and Sutter County, California. But as Meckel pointed out, the lion’s share of the terminations was made to awards approved between the Nov. 5 US presidential election of Donald Trump and his Jan. 20 inauguration. That means the withdrawn awards represent a small subset of CCS projects, many of which are in the early stages of development. “The number is big, but the amount of money that had been allocated to date was actually quite small. So it was more of a savings on the books than an actual recovery of money that had been allocated,” he said. That’s not to say federal funding isn’t a concern, as additional cuts could be forthcoming. In total, the DOE has been reviewing 179 awards totaling over $15 billion for large-scale commercial energy projects, according to a May 15 memo from the department. Meckel said taking back federal monies for CCS and other clean energy projects could send a message that the US government has become an unreliable partner for energy development. “It decreases US competitiveness when we’re not pursuing these very forward-thinking energy projects, because in all likelihood the companies that are interested are going to develop them somewhere else,” he said. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

The US government is sending mixed messages about support for carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects, dialing up concerns about the segment’s future — and whether it will create a surge of project cargo and breakbulk activity. The Senate’s July 1 passage of the Congressional budget reconciliation bill on tax and spending — also known as President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — included the retention of a key tax credit for the CCS buildout. Lawmakers approved a version of the legislation that would preserve and expand the incentive known as the 45Q tax credit, which many later-stage CCS projects rely on. But the incentive’s rescue comes just weeks after the May 30 cancellation of 24 federal awards totaling nearly $3.7 billion for projects that primarily include CCS and decarbonization initiatives. The US Department of Energy pulled the awards after determining that the projects “failed to advance the energy needs of the American people.” Tip Meckel, senior research scientist at the Gulf Coast Carbon Center, told the Journal of Commerce that, although federal grants have been in the crosshairs, the future of CCS development depends even more so on the 45Q incentive. “I think overall there’s a sense that the impact on CCS may not be as big as everyone was thinking,” he said. While the $3.7 billion in funding had been approved for several projects that have yet to get off the ground, Meckel said the tax incentive is essential to projects that are well under way, and thus closer to the project cargo stage. “What passed in the Senate version of the bill was essentially what most people who support CCS were hoping for,” he said, explaining that the legislation maintains the tax credit writ large while increasing the credit’s value for certain projects. The bill will next advance to the House for final consideration. ‘A foundational driver’ The 45Q credit was introduced in 2008 and increased significantly under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). But the incentive has met both resistance and support from Republican lawmakers, including some who proposed changes to the Senate bill that would do away with the incentive altogether. Madelyn Morrison, director of government affairs for the Carbon Capture Coalition, said In a July 1 statement that the Senate’s approved version of the bill retains “mission-critical elements” of the tax credit. “45Q is the foundational market driver for domestic carbon management deployment, and we appreciate the Senate Finance Committee and key Senate champions for advocating for improvements that strengthen the credit’s long-term effectiveness,” Morrison said. Carbon capture and storage is a climate mitigation strategy backed by the oil and gas industry and has been of particular interest to liquefied natural gas (LNG) companies that are pursuing CCS to power their facilities. CCS involves capturing carbon dioxide emitted from power plants and factories and storing it underground. Carbon capture and storage projects could generate a significant source of project and breakbulk cargo to move and install components such as pipelines, chemical plant equipment, compressors, heavy machinery and raw materials. Pulled funding sends message While the July 1 Senate vote marked a win for CCS development, the $3.7 billion funding pullback signaled a shot across the bow. The federal cuts included nearly $332 million for ExxonMobil to develop a world-scale blue hydrogen and CCS plant at its refinery complex in Baytown, Texas, and $540 million for Calpine to retrofit its natural gas-fired power plants in Baytown and Sutter County, California. But as Meckel pointed out, the lion’s share of the terminations was made to awards approved between the Nov. 5 US presidential election of Donald Trump and his Jan. 20 inauguration. That means the withdrawn awards represent a small subset of CCS projects, many of which are in the early stages of development. “The number is big, but the amount of money that had been allocated to date was actually quite small. So it was more of a savings on the books than an actual recovery of money that had been allocated,” he said. That’s not to say federal funding isn’t a concern, as additional cuts could be forthcoming. In total, the DOE has been reviewing 179 awards totaling over $15 billion for large-scale commercial energy projects, according to a May 15 memo from the department. Meckel said taking back federal monies for CCS and other clean energy projects could send a message that the US government has become an unreliable partner for energy development. “It decreases US competitiveness when we’re not pursuing these very forward-thinking energy projects, because in all likelihood the companies that are interested are going to develop them somewhere else,” he said. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Maritime

Breakbulk News

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Mixed US policy on carbon capture clouds project cargo demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While vessels on the lead West India–US East Coast networks have continued to sail full, forwarders have linked the “sold-out” experience to capacity cutbacks and consequent cargo rollovers. </div>

While vessels on the lead West India–US East Coast networks have continued to sail full, forwarders have linked the “sold-out” experience to capacity cutbacks and consequent cargo rollovers.

<div class="phx-topic">Major container lines on the India-US East Coast route have drastically downgraded their peak-season booking rate increase targets in July amid persistent demand headwinds Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce said carriers have applied moderate rates in the $500–$600 range per container rather than the $1,500–$3,000 per box originally slated to hit spot rates starting July 1. The pullback on pricing pushes parallels similar actions by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/excess-capacity-sinks-planned-july-1-rate-increase-in-eastbound-trans-pacific-6036946">ocean carriers on the Asia-North America trade lane</a>. “Most lines have set their rate quotes slightly up, but there is little buoyancy in the market for them to push prices higher than the levels they have already attempted,” said a Mumbai-based forwarder executive on condition of anonymity. “Cargo bookings are very slow.” Sources said carriers are effectively adjusting spot rates on a sailing-by-sailing or weekly basis to fill vessels, with asking prices from West India to New York now oscillating between $2,400 and $3,000 per FEU. “Some customers seem to be holding back on shipment plans, pending clarity on tariffs,” a sales executive at a European carrier told the Journal of Commerce. Still, several carriers have lined up another round of rate hikes — albeit at a lower scale — from July 15 in anticipation of stronger demand. While vessels on the lead West India–US East Coast networks have continued to sail full, forwarders have linked the “sold-out” experience to capacity cutbacks and consequent cargo rollovers. A significant portion of the declared capacity is also being blanked in July, with six void calls for West India reported across three weekly connections — the Indamex run by CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd’s TPI and Ocean Network Express’ WIN. Industry sources believe US import frontloading from China during the 90-day tariff reprieve may have slowed Indian shipment sourcing and that a pickup in westbound volumes would hinge on the tariff framework of a trade deal between Washington and New Delhi. India-US West Coast spot rates have flattened in the meantime due to the recent peak, with allocations on extended Asian routings for direct or transshipment loading improving in the last week. Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s cancellation of a July 1 peak-season surcharge of $3,600 per TEU and $4,000 per FEU validates that correction. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Major container lines on the India-US East Coast route have drastically downgraded their peak-season booking rate increase targets in July amid persistent demand headwinds Local freight forwarders who spoke with the Journal of Commerce said carriers have applied moderate rates in the $500–$600 range per container rather than the $1,500–$3,000 per box originally slated to hit spot rates starting July 1. The pullback on pricing pushes parallels similar actions by ocean carriers on the Asia-North America trade lane . “Most lines have set their rate quotes slightly up, but there is little buoyancy in the market for them to push prices higher than the levels they have already attempted,” said a Mumbai-based forwarder executive on condition of anonymity. “Cargo bookings are very slow.” Sources said carriers are effectively adjusting spot rates on a sailing-by-sailing or weekly basis to fill vessels, with asking prices from West India to New York now oscillating between $2,400 and $3,000 per FEU. “Some customers seem to be holding back on shipment plans, pending clarity on tariffs,” a sales executive at a European carrier told the Journal of Commerce. Still, several carriers have lined up another round of rate hikes — albeit at a lower scale — from July 15 in anticipation of stronger demand. While vessels on the lead West India–US East Coast networks have continued to sail full, forwarders have linked the “sold-out” experience to capacity cutbacks and consequent cargo rollovers. A significant portion of the declared capacity is also being blanked in July, with six void calls for West India reported across three weekly connections — the Indamex run by CMA CGM, Hapag-Lloyd’s TPI and Ocean Network Express’ WIN. Industry sources believe US import frontloading from China during the 90-day tariff reprieve may have slowed Indian shipment sourcing and that a pickup in westbound volumes would hinge on the tariff framework of a trade deal between Washington and New Delhi. India-US West Coast spot rates have flattened in the meantime due to the recent peak, with allocations on extended Asian routings for direct or transshipment loading improving in the last week. Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s cancellation of a July 1 peak-season surcharge of $3,600 per TEU and $4,000 per FEU validates that correction. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Container lines

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

Container lines pull back on India-US pricing push

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The fresh capacity carriers rushed into the US’ busiest trade lane in April and May is no longer needed, sending rates on a downward spiral and forcing carriers to shelve proposed price hikes.</div>

The fresh capacity carriers rushed into the US’ busiest trade lane in April and May is no longer needed, sending rates on a downward spiral and forcing carriers to shelve proposed price hikes.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers have failed to implement a planned general rate increase (GRI) in the eastbound trans-Pacific this week, with vessel capacity on the route exceeding forward demand that has been in steady decline for weeks. And in yet another sign that the peak shipping season will be muted, carriers have also dropped plans to impose a peak season surcharge (PSS) on fixed-rate contracts to the US West Coast. That comes as spot rates paid by importers and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates charged to forwarders continue to sink. “They went up quickly. It looks like they’re going down just as quickly,” Kurt McElroy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex, said. “There’s not enough demand.” Carriers have announced PSSs of $1,000 per FEU to the US East Coast from July 1–14, according to carrier rate announcements shared with the Journal of Commerce, who spoke to eight forwarders and two carriers for this story. At least one container line is rolling PSSs into quarterly rates, but at approximately half the amount, two shippers said on the condition of anonymity. Rate activity in the largest US trade lane <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/importers-try-to-push-cargo-to-contract-rates-as-trans-pac-spot-market-surges-5244311">contrasts sharply with last year</a>, when spot rates surged as high as $10,000 per FEU to the East Coast and $8,000 to the West Coast in early July, while carriers were also able to impose a series of PSSs throughout the summer and fall. This year, uncertainty about the Trump administration’s trade policy resulted in massive frontloading of fall and holiday merchandise as US retailers rushed to bring in goods during a 90-day reprieve from so-called reciprocal tariffs. The pause on tariffs from most countries expires July 9, while a similar reprieve on China-sourced goods ends Aug. 14. That frontloading likely means weaker imports during the traditional August through October peak shipping season, said Christian Sur, executive vice president for ocean freight contract logistics at the forwarder Unique Logistics International. Last year, July to October volume was strong, but with all of the frontloading, especially from China, no one expects the volume to be as strong this year,” Sur said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e8c13a3e-9f5a-412f-8741-adbf5e1a7779"></dynamic-object></div>As a result, spot rates have been sinking rapidly over the past month. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, pegged spot rates from North Asia to the West Coast at $2,200 per FEU as of July 1, down 15% on the week. Rates to the East Coast were $4,300 per FEU, 12% lower. Rate benchmarking platform Xeneta had the West Coast spot rate at $2,800 per FEU as of June 26, with the East Coast at $5,473 per FEU. Spot rates listed on some rate indexes can lag the rates importers and forwarders are actually paying by a week or longer. This week, most imports from Asia are moving at $4,400 to $4,500 per FEU to the East Coast and $2,400 to $2,500 per FEU to the West Coast, McElroy said. Retailers and forwarders who shop around can secure even lower prices from some carriers, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders. Some carriers are quoting sub-$4,000-per-FEU spot/FAK rates to the East Coast and sub-$2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, Monroe said. <h3>Tariffs a fading concern? </h3>Carriers ending PSSs on fixed-rate accounts for both importers and forwarders to the West Coast and limiting their PSSs to the East Coast to two weeks from July 1–14 indicate that going forward, no one is making bookings based on tariff deadlines, Sur said. “Tariffs are quickly becoming a non-issue,” he said. Ample vessel capacity for the coming months has also made shipper concerns about securing space this summer less of an issue than it was in past years. Data from maritime visibility provider eeSea shows that the recent addition of vessel capacity by trans-Pacific carriers has brought total capacity to 1.57 million TEUs in July, the highest for any month since 2021. Some 8.6% of that capacity is poised to be blanked. In August, the total capacity is scheduled to slip to 1.48 million TEUs, with 7.7% of the capacity scheduled to be blanked. Even with the blank sailings, the total capacity offered in the eastbound trans-Pacific will be almost 20% higher in July than July 2024 and 10.6% higher in August year over year, according to eeSea. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="c3135e8b-9bef-4f08-a278-5c853b855a74"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers rushed fresh capacity into the eastbound trans-Pacific in April and May when the Trump administration announced the pauses on higher tariffs. But once that surge in bookings was over, overcapacity took hold, sending rates on a downward spiral. A carrier source said the eastbound trans-Pac may witness additional blank sailings in the coming months. “Volumes are starting to go down and rates are falling because a lot of capacity was brought on,” the source said. “If management starts seeing the rates decline very quickly, they might remove the capacity.” <h3>August–October volumes difficult to forecast </h3>Projecting import volumes for the traditional August through October peak shipping season remains a hazy task, forwarders and carriers say. “This is a time when it is hard to predict where we are headed,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. Still, Khachatryan said he does not detect huge demand building among importers. “The market is still soft and is likely to remain so at least through July,” a second carrier executive said. “But we can’t say beyond that. We’re in a wait-and-see mode.” A logistics manager for a large retailer told the Journal of Commerce she is still waiting on the company’s second-half forecast, but July and August look softer than last year. The source said July will be the retailer’s peak season. The retailer is still paying a $500 PSS into the West Coast, but that is down from $2,000 per FEU originally. Despite the frontloading by most retailers, there is still fall and holiday merchandise scheduled to be shipped. While import volumes will be down from last fall’s double-digit year-over-year increases, they won’t fall off the cliff. Ben Coleman, president of the forwarder Teampower Logistics, said there are clients with seasonal merchandise still scheduled to ship and others who will seek to rebuild their inventories. Another forwarder said the several months of frontloading did not rob the eastbound trans-Pacific of all its cargo this fall. “There are still retail goods that have to be moved,” the source said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Ocean carriers have failed to implement a planned general rate increase (GRI) in the eastbound trans-Pacific this week, with vessel capacity on the route exceeding forward demand that has been in steady decline for weeks. And in yet another sign that the peak shipping season will be muted, carriers have also dropped plans to impose a peak season surcharge (PSS) on fixed-rate contracts to the US West Coast. That comes as spot rates paid by importers and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates charged to forwarders continue to sink. “They went up quickly. It looks like they’re going down just as quickly,” Kurt McElroy, executive vice president at the forwarder Kerry Apex, said. “There’s not enough demand.” Carriers have announced PSSs of $1,000 per FEU to the US East Coast from July 1–14, according to carrier rate announcements shared with the Journal of Commerce, who spoke to eight forwarders and two carriers for this story. At least one container line is rolling PSSs into quarterly rates, but at approximately half the amount, two shippers said on the condition of anonymity. Rate activity in the largest US trade lane contrasts sharply with last year , when spot rates surged as high as $10,000 per FEU to the East Coast and $8,000 to the West Coast in early July, while carriers were also able to impose a series of PSSs throughout the summer and fall. This year, uncertainty about the Trump administration’s trade policy resulted in massive frontloading of fall and holiday merchandise as US retailers rushed to bring in goods during a 90-day reprieve from so-called reciprocal tariffs. The pause on tariffs from most countries expires July 9, while a similar reprieve on China-sourced goods ends Aug. 14. That frontloading likely means weaker imports during the traditional August through October peak shipping season, said Christian Sur, executive vice president for ocean freight contract logistics at the forwarder Unique Logistics International. Last year, July to October volume was strong, but with all of the frontloading, especially from China, no one expects the volume to be as strong this year,” Sur said. As a result, spot rates have been sinking rapidly over the past month. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, pegged spot rates from North Asia to the West Coast at $2,200 per FEU as of July 1, down 15% on the week. Rates to the East Coast were $4,300 per FEU, 12% lower. Rate benchmarking platform Xeneta had the West Coast spot rate at $2,800 per FEU as of June 26, with the East Coast at $5,473 per FEU. Spot rates listed on some rate indexes can lag the rates importers and forwarders are actually paying by a week or longer. This week, most imports from Asia are moving at $4,400 to $4,500 per FEU to the East Coast and $2,400 to $2,500 per FEU to the West Coast, McElroy said. Retailers and forwarders who shop around can secure even lower prices from some carriers, said Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders. Some carriers are quoting sub-$4,000-per-FEU spot/FAK rates to the East Coast and sub-$2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, Monroe said. Tariffs a fading concern? Carriers ending PSSs on fixed-rate accounts for both importers and forwarders to the West Coast and limiting their PSSs to the East Coast to two weeks from July 1–14 indicate that going forward, no one is making bookings based on tariff deadlines, Sur said. “Tariffs are quickly becoming a non-issue,” he said. Ample vessel capacity for the coming months has also made shipper concerns about securing space this summer less of an issue than it was in past years. Data from maritime visibility provider eeSea shows that the recent addition of vessel capacity by trans-Pacific carriers has brought total capacity to 1.57 million TEUs in July, the highest for any month since 2021. Some 8.6% of that capacity is poised to be blanked. In August, the total capacity is scheduled to slip to 1.48 million TEUs, with 7.7% of the capacity scheduled to be blanked. Even with the blank sailings, the total capacity offered in the eastbound trans-Pacific will be almost 20% higher in July than July 2024 and 10.6% higher in August year over year, according to eeSea. Carriers rushed fresh capacity into the eastbound trans-Pacific in April and May when the Trump administration announced the pauses on higher tariffs. But once that surge in bookings was over, overcapacity took hold, sending rates on a downward spiral. A carrier source said the eastbound trans-Pac may witness additional blank sailings in the coming months. “Volumes are starting to go down and rates are falling because a lot of capacity was brought on,” the source said. “If management starts seeing the rates decline very quickly, they might remove the capacity.” August–October volumes difficult to forecast Projecting import volumes for the traditional August through October peak shipping season remains a hazy task, forwarders and carriers say. “This is a time when it is hard to predict where we are headed,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of the forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. Still, Khachatryan said he does not detect huge demand building among importers. “The market is still soft and is likely to remain so at least through July,” a second carrier executive said. “But we can’t say beyond that. We’re in a wait-and-see mode.” A logistics manager for a large retailer told the Journal of Commerce she is still waiting on the company’s second-half forecast, but July and August look softer than last year. The source said July will be the retailer’s peak season. The retailer is still paying a $500 PSS into the West Coast, but that is down from $2,000 per FEU originally. Despite the frontloading by most retailers, there is still fall and holiday merchandise scheduled to be shipped. While import volumes will be down from last fall’s double-digit year-over-year increases, they won’t fall off the cliff. Ben Coleman, president of the forwarder Teampower Logistics, said there are clients with seasonal merchandise still scheduled to ship and others who will seek to rebuild their inventories. Another forwarder said the several months of frontloading did not rob the eastbound trans-Pacific of all its cargo this fall. “There are still retail goods that have to be moved,” the source said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Port News

North American ports

Excess capacity sinks planned July 1 rate increase in eastbound trans-Pacific

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The complaint from Dollar General alleges the carrier sold more of its capacity in the high-flying spot market of 2021, leaving shippers under fixed-price contracts in the lurch.</div>

The complaint from Dollar General alleges the carrier sold more of its capacity in the high-flying spot market of 2021, leaving shippers under fixed-price contracts in the lurch.

<div class="phx-topic">Yang Ming made available about one-quarter of the container ship space it agreed to provide to discount retailer Dollar General in 2021, forcing the discount retailer to book freight at higher spot rates as the ocean carrier sold capacity to forwarders, according to a complaint made to the US Federal Maritime Commission. The complaint, filed last week, marks the latest instance of shippers claiming their freight was bumped during the COVID-19 container surge. Dollar General’s complaint marks <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/two-us-shippers-latest-to-allege-carriers-bumped-contract-cargo-to-spot-market-5921997">at least the fifth</a> filed <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/yang-ming-settles-fmc-complaint-with-importer-5194345">since 2022</a> against Yang Ming over its service contract commitments. Dollar General is seeking $14.77 million in damages; Yang Ming did not respond to a request for a comment. Dollar General claims that its service contract with Yang Ming included a commitment to ship 2,226 containers during the 2021 service year. The carrier was to provide 130% of weekly, prorated capacity for those containers as long as Dollar General provided shipment forecasts about a month ahead of time. Despite Dollar General providing rolling forecasts of its anticipated shipments, it said Yang Ming failed to meet its capacity commitment during 11 of 14 weeks in 2021. Ultimately, Dollar General only secured space for 616 containers under its service contract, forcing it “to seek carriage from other sources at higher rates, or else forgo shipments entirely,” it said in the complaint. “Yang Ming knew before the beginning of the 2021 shipping year that it had overcommitted space to its service contract customers and would not be able to satisfy the signed minimum quantity commitments — yet it continued to finalize and execute contracts anyway,” Dollar General alleged. The complaint cites Yang Ming internal data that shows at the beginning of the 2021 shipping year the company allocated about 40% of its vessel capacity to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), with the remainder sold to non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), primarily in the spot market. However, “Yang Ming ultimately allocated less than 30% of its total capacity to its BCO customers while allocating approximately 70% to its NVO customers,” Dollar General alleged in the complaint. Larger BCOs were also favored over smaller BCOs, the complaint alleges. Dollar General cited an internal email at Yang Ming that it came into possession of, saying some of the carrier’s major BCOs “are receiving almost 400 TEUs above what we agreed to give them.” Despite a request from a local Yang Ming representative to reallocate that space to smaller BCOs, “every single customer ... knows what is happening. Someone is getting the space and it is the [fixed] accounts that are paying the most,” according to one Yang Ming email cited in the complaint. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Yang Ming made available about one-quarter of the container ship space it agreed to provide to discount retailer Dollar General in 2021, forcing the discount retailer to book freight at higher spot rates as the ocean carrier sold capacity to forwarders, according to a complaint made to the US Federal Maritime Commission. The complaint, filed last week, marks the latest instance of shippers claiming their freight was bumped during the COVID-19 container surge. Dollar General’s complaint marks at least the fifth filed since 2022 against Yang Ming over its service contract commitments. Dollar General is seeking $14.77 million in damages; Yang Ming did not respond to a request for a comment. Dollar General claims that its service contract with Yang Ming included a commitment to ship 2,226 containers during the 2021 service year. The carrier was to provide 130% of weekly, prorated capacity for those containers as long as Dollar General provided shipment forecasts about a month ahead of time. Despite Dollar General providing rolling forecasts of its anticipated shipments, it said Yang Ming failed to meet its capacity commitment during 11 of 14 weeks in 2021. Ultimately, Dollar General only secured space for 616 containers under its service contract, forcing it “to seek carriage from other sources at higher rates, or else forgo shipments entirely,” it said in the complaint. “Yang Ming knew before the beginning of the 2021 shipping year that it had overcommitted space to its service contract customers and would not be able to satisfy the signed minimum quantity commitments — yet it continued to finalize and execute contracts anyway,” Dollar General alleged. The complaint cites Yang Ming internal data that shows at the beginning of the 2021 shipping year the company allocated about 40% of its vessel capacity to beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), with the remainder sold to non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs), primarily in the spot market. However, “Yang Ming ultimately allocated less than 30% of its total capacity to its BCO customers while allocating approximately 70% to its NVO customers,” Dollar General alleged in the complaint. Larger BCOs were also favored over smaller BCOs, the complaint alleges. Dollar General cited an internal email at Yang Ming that it came into possession of, saying some of the carrier’s major BCOs “are receiving almost 400 TEUs above what we agreed to give them.” Despite a request from a local Yang Ming representative to reallocate that space to smaller BCOs, “every single customer ... knows what is happening. Someone is getting the space and it is the [fixed] accounts that are paying the most,” according to one Yang Ming email cited in the complaint. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Yang Ming hit with new FMC complaint over service contracts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The deployment of 24,000-TEU ships on its Africa Express service allows the carrier to better leverage billions of dollars invested in West Africa in recent years, reducing exposure to congested North European ports. </div>

The deployment of 24,000-TEU ships on its Africa Express service allows the carrier to better leverage billions of dollars invested in West Africa in recent years, reducing exposure to congested North European ports.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s recent deployment of the largest vessels in its fleet to West African ports shows how the container line is capitalizing on the regional market and reducing its reliance on European hubs for transshipping. The deployment in April of 24,000-TEU ships on its Africa Express service allows MSC to better leverage billions of dollars invested in West Africa in recent years, reducing exposure to congested North European ports and tapping growing regional demand. West Africa’s GDP is forecast to expand 4.3% in 2025–26, according to the African Development Bank. The service connecting West Africa with north and southeast Asia calls Tema, Ghana and its longstanding hub in Lomé, Togo. Container volumes at Lomé last year rose 5% year over year to 2 million TEUs, according to an <a href="https://www.togofirst.com/en/logistics/2404-16204-lome-port-records-modest-growth-in-2024-fueled-by-strong-transshipment?utm_source=chatgpt.com">Invest in Togo</a> report. MSC’s European hub-and-spoke network relies on Antwerp, Gioia Tauro, Rotterdam and Valencia, yet its $6.1 billion acquisition of Bolloré Africa Logistics (renamed Africa Global Logistics [AGL]) in 2022 opened new possibilities for the carrier. At MSC’s emerging hub in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, where a second terminal operated by AGL opened in 2022, volumes rocketed 29% last year to 1.6 million TEUs, the <a href="https://www.ecofinagency.com/finance/2702-46447-port-of-abidjan-handles-1-6-million-teus-in-2024-almost-double-2022?utm_source=chatgpt.com">Ecofin Agency</a> said. The new facility expanded Abidjan’s container capacity to 2.5 million TEUs. MSC was not available for comment. <h3>Creating new hubs ‘makes sense’ </h3>The growth in West Africa’s transshipment volumes is more than just a result of major carriers routing ships around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea, analysts tell the Journal of Commerce. Transshipping through Lomé and Abidjan allows MSC to reduce exposure when port congestion hits Antwerp and Rotterdam, as has been the case since the start of 2025. Setting up hubs closer to Europe — but not in Europe — could allow carriers to reduce payments under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which launched in 2024, said Jan Hoffmann, the World Bank’s global lead for maritime transport and ports. “The region used to be connected to the rest of the world via transshipment services in Antwerp or Rotterdam [but] now counts on numerous direct connections, with the largest vessels,” said Hoffmann. “Deploying ultra large container ships [ULCSs] on that route and establishing hubs in [the West Africa] region makes sense for a number of reasons.” In addition to reducing payments under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, those reasons include improvements to roads connecting West African ports. As the largest operator of container ship tonnage and free of a shipping alliance partner, MSC is well positioned to make bolder moves within its network, said Jeremy Masters, managing director of Shipping Masters and a Journal of Commerce contributor. Other container lines serve West Africa but have yet to significantly drive transshipment volumes, Masters said. For example, CMA CGM deploys 16,000-TEU ships on its West Africa loop connecting Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo to Qingdao, China. Ocean Network Express’ services to the region are more focused on loops serving West Africa than feeding a node connecting deep-sea services to short-sea services. West Africa ports are growing and modernizing. DP World is spending $1.2 billion to construct a greenfield facility at Ndayane in Senegal. When phase one is completed in 2027, <a href="https://www.dpworld.com/news/releases/dp-world-kicks-off-maritime-construction-at-new-12-billion-port-in-senegal/">the port’s 1.2 million TEU container capacity</a> will reduce pressure on the country’s other major port, Dakar. The ULCSs will likely be repatriated to the Suez Canal routing when maritime safety is restored to the Red Sea, Masters said. “But if Lomé has by that time proven [itself] through its local and regional feed of volume, and then if MSC looks at other deep-sea routes that connect through, then I think [the port] would have established itself in its own right,” he said. Still, such is the combined impact of the size of the global container ship order book and the amount of vessels likely to be freed up by the would-be shorter Suez routings that it can be argued that West Africa’s increasing attractiveness could be just the way to put all the extra tonnage to good use. Contact Peter Shaw-Smith at <a href="mailto:petershawsmith@gmail.com">petershawsmith@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s recent deployment of the largest vessels in its fleet to West African ports shows how the container line is capitalizing on the regional market and reducing its reliance on European hubs for transshipping. The deployment in April of 24,000-TEU ships on its Africa Express service allows MSC to better leverage billions of dollars invested in West Africa in recent years, reducing exposure to congested North European ports and tapping growing regional demand. West Africa’s GDP is forecast to expand 4.3% in 2025–26, according to the African Development Bank. The service connecting West Africa with north and southeast Asia calls Tema, Ghana and its longstanding hub in Lomé, Togo. Container volumes at Lomé last year rose 5% year over year to 2 million TEUs, according to an Invest in Togo report. MSC’s European hub-and-spoke network relies on Antwerp, Gioia Tauro, Rotterdam and Valencia, yet its $6.1 billion acquisition of Bolloré Africa Logistics (renamed Africa Global Logistics [AGL]) in 2022 opened new possibilities for the carrier. At MSC’s emerging hub in Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire, where a second terminal operated by AGL opened in 2022, volumes rocketed 29% last year to 1.6 million TEUs, the Ecofin Agency said. The new facility expanded Abidjan’s container capacity to 2.5 million TEUs. MSC was not available for comment. Creating new hubs ‘makes sense’ The growth in West Africa’s transshipment volumes is more than just a result of major carriers routing ships around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid Houthi rebel attacks in the Red Sea, analysts tell the Journal of Commerce. Transshipping through Lomé and Abidjan allows MSC to reduce exposure when port congestion hits Antwerp and Rotterdam, as has been the case since the start of 2025. Setting up hubs closer to Europe — but not in Europe — could allow carriers to reduce payments under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, which launched in 2024, said Jan Hoffmann, the World Bank’s global lead for maritime transport and ports. “The region used to be connected to the rest of the world via transshipment services in Antwerp or Rotterdam [but] now counts on numerous direct connections, with the largest vessels,” said Hoffmann. “Deploying ultra large container ships [ULCSs] on that route and establishing hubs in [the West Africa] region makes sense for a number of reasons.” In addition to reducing payments under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, those reasons include improvements to roads connecting West African ports. As the largest operator of container ship tonnage and free of a shipping alliance partner, MSC is well positioned to make bolder moves within its network, said Jeremy Masters, managing director of Shipping Masters and a Journal of Commerce contributor. Other container lines serve West Africa but have yet to significantly drive transshipment volumes, Masters said. For example, CMA CGM deploys 16,000-TEU ships on its West Africa loop connecting Pointe-Noire in the Republic of Congo to Qingdao, China. Ocean Network Express’ services to the region are more focused on loops serving West Africa than feeding a node connecting deep-sea services to short-sea services. West Africa ports are growing and modernizing. DP World is spending $1.2 billion to construct a greenfield facility at Ndayane in Senegal. When phase one is completed in 2027, the port’s 1.2 million TEU container capacity will reduce pressure on the country’s other major port, Dakar. The ULCSs will likely be repatriated to the Suez Canal routing when maritime safety is restored to the Red Sea, Masters said. “But if Lomé has by that time proven [itself] through its local and regional feed of volume, and then if MSC looks at other deep-sea routes that connect through, then I think [the port] would have established itself in its own right,” he said. Still, such is the combined impact of the size of the global container ship order book and the amount of vessels likely to be freed up by the would-be shorter Suez routings that it can be argued that West Africa’s increasing attractiveness could be just the way to put all the extra tonnage to good use. Contact Peter Shaw-Smith at petershawsmith@gmail.com .

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

International ports

Growth in West African ports opens new transshipment options for MSC

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

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

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

Mixed US policy on carbon capture clouds project cargo demand

Container lines pull back on India-US pricing push

Excess capacity sinks planned July 1 rate increase in eastbound trans-Pacific