<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The international shipping sector can expect incremental progress on decarbonization to continue next year, but without widespread clarity on a way to reach long-term goals, 2021 may end up looking a lot like 2020.</div>

The international shipping sector can expect incremental progress on decarbonization to continue next year, but without widespread clarity on a way to reach long-term goals, 2021 may end up looking a lot like 2020.

3657671_FI.jpg

<div class="phx-topic">This story appears in the print edition of the Jan. 4, 2021, Journal of Commerce Annual Review and Outlook.While the overarching question surrounding decarbonization in shipping — how exactly does the industry get there? — remained unanswered as 2020 came to a close, the year did feature some progress on the commercial side as carriers and forwarders, feeling growing pressure from shippers, began offering products and services designed to lower emissions. Still, uncertainty over the best path to a zero-carbon future is beginning to figure into capacity decisions by carriers, demonstrated by the restraint shown by container lines in ordering new ships.<div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5255728_1.0.png"></img>l</div>It’s a safe bet that, while incremental progress on decarbonization will continue next year, without widespread clarity on a way forward, 2021 may end up looking a lot like 2020.The year ended with industry attempting to sell the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on the benefits of a proposed $5 billion research and development fund designed to hasten the creation of decarbonization technologies. The proposal, backed by eight of the world’s largest ship owner groups, including the World Shipping Council (WSC), BIMCO, and Intertanko, received its first airing in late November during a virtual meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). The IMO, which had a host of questions on the plan, took no formal action and will resume discussion on the proposal in June.“The industry recognizes the unprecedented nature of its proposal and the associated complexities and will work to address this so that governments can take forward its offer of $5 billion of funding to accelerate R&amp;D, to ensure the technological innovation necessary to make the required zero-carbon transition within the IMO 2050 timeline,” WSC said in a November statement ahead of the IMO’s review.The proposal calls for the R&amp;D fund to be financed over a 10-year period by a required levy of $2 per metric ton of marine fuel consumed, to be paid for by shipping companies. The fund would be overseen by the IMO through a new body known as the International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB).Under the plan, the IMRB would be operational by 2023, with the expectation it would be folded well before 2050, the IMO’s targeted deadline for reducing total emissions from international shipping by at least 50 percent compared with 2008 levels.Still, ship owners and carriers acknowledged they need to deal with questions raised by IMO member states, not least of which are the specifics about the R&amp;D fund’s governance and oversight. “Governments have … raised a number of legitimate issues which the IMO will need to carefully address,” WSC said.Aoife O’Leary, director of international climate for the Environmental Defense Fund, said there needs to be less focus on the shipping industry’s R&amp;D proposal and more on carbon pricing tools.“We believe that a well-designed carbon pricing mechanism can not only incentivize an implementation of more energy efficient operational measures, but will also drive the ultimate transition of the sector towards zero-carbon fuels,” O’Leary said in an email to JOC.com. “While R&amp;D is important, the proposal as it stands from the industry will not help to decarbonize the industry. The IMO needs to focus on a full carbon pricing measure immediately.”<h2>Growing pressure</h2>Shipper demand for more environmental sustainability in supply chains increasingly drove new services and technologies on the part of container carriers in 2020. Forwarders and carriers say environmental executives with shipper organizations are increasingly showing up at meetings.CMA CGM, for example, launched a new slate of more environmentally friendly offerings it calls ACT with CMA CGM+. According to the Marseille-based carrier, shippers and non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) using ACT will be able to choose services in which their cargo is moved via its liquefied natural gas (LNG) and biofuel-powered vessels, allowing them to reduce emissions produced through shipping their goods by anywhere from 15 percent to 85 percent.Maersk also offers a biofuel transport option, and most major carriers offer some type of carbon calculator, which allow shippers to track the emissions of given services and select accordingly. DHL in October said it would replace heavy fuel oil with sustainable biofuel on select container ships to neutralize the carbon emissions of all its less-than-container load (LCL) ocean freight shipments starting Jan. 1. At the start of 2020, Kuehne + Nagel began offering carbon neutral LCL shipments by offsetting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with investment in sustainable conservation projects.The uncertainty over how to achieve a zero-carbon future is beginning to complicate strategic capacity planning for carriers. Without a clear understanding of the technology that will be used to propel ships over the next decade-plus, container lines are pulling back on ordering new ships at a time when vessel space is reportedly maxed out in the major east–west trades.That makes it less likely that overcapacity, which plagued the industry for the better part of the last decade, will return to the sector in coming years, given that research into viable new fuel types is only in the early stages.“We are very much aware of the technology risks for ordering ships at this point,” Maersk CEO Søren Skou said on the company’s third-quarter earnings call in mid-November. “We would ideally like to figure out … what the future fuel should be and then start building ships.” Maersk’s orderbook as a percent of its existing fleet is a mere 1 percent, according to IHS Markit.Regardless of the reason, carriers simply are not ordering as many ships as they used to; the global orderbook as a percent of the existing fleet has dropped from 61 percent in 2007 and an average of 16 percent over the last five years to just 8 percent currently, Hapag-Lloyd said in its third-quarter earnings statement.Container lines also aren’t arguing with the distant time horizon for decarbonization solutions to materialize.“We strongly believe in the coming era of decarbonization and zero-carbon ships,” Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson Nils Haupt told JOC.com. “But it will still take time until we have a solution.”</div>

This story appears in the print edition of the Jan. 4, 2021, Journal of Commerce Annual Review and Outlook. While the overarching question surrounding decarbonization in shipping — how exactly does the industry get there? — remained unanswered as 2020 came to a close, the year did feature some progress on the commercial side as carriers and forwarders, feeling growing pressure from shippers, began offering products and services designed to lower emissions. Still, uncertainty over the best path to a zero-carbon future is beginning to figure into capacity decisions by carriers, demonstrated by the restraint shown by container lines in ordering new ships. l It’s a safe bet that, while incremental progress on decarbonization will continue next year, without widespread clarity on a way forward, 2021 may end up looking a lot like 2020. The year ended with industry attempting to sell the International Maritime Organization (IMO) on the benefits of a proposed $5 billion research and development fund designed to hasten the creation of decarbonization technologies. The proposal, backed by eight of the world’s largest ship owner groups, including the World Shipping Council (WSC), BIMCO, and Intertanko, received its first airing in late November during a virtual meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC). The IMO, which had a host of questions on the plan, took no formal action and will resume discussion on the proposal in June. “The industry recognizes the unprecedented nature of its proposal and the associated complexities and will work to address this so that governments can take forward its offer of $5 billion of funding to accelerate R&D, to ensure the technological innovation necessary to make the required zero-carbon transition within the IMO 2050 timeline,” WSC said in a November statement ahead of the IMO’s review. The proposal calls for the R&D fund to be financed over a 10-year period by a required levy of $2 per metric ton of marine fuel consumed, to be paid for by shipping companies. The fund would be overseen by the IMO through a new body known as the International Maritime Research and Development Board (IMRB). Under the plan, the IMRB would be operational by 2023, with the expectation it would be folded well before 2050, the IMO’s targeted deadline for reducing total emissions from international shipping by at least 50 percent compared with 2008 levels. Still, ship owners and carriers acknowledged they need to deal with questions raised by IMO member states, not least of which are the specifics about the R&D fund’s governance and oversight. “Governments have … raised a number of legitimate issues which the IMO will need to carefully address,” WSC said. Aoife O’Leary, director of international climate for the Environmental Defense Fund, said there needs to be less focus on the shipping industry’s R&D proposal and more on carbon pricing tools. “We believe that a well-designed carbon pricing mechanism can not only incentivize an implementation of more energy efficient operational measures, but will also drive the ultimate transition of the sector towards zero-carbon fuels,” O’Leary said in an email to JOC.com. “While R&D is important, the proposal as it stands from the industry will not help to decarbonize the industry. The IMO needs to focus on a full carbon pricing measure immediately.” Growing pressure Shipper demand for more environmental sustainability in supply chains increasingly drove new services and technologies on the part of container carriers in 2020. Forwarders and carriers say environmental executives with shipper organizations are increasingly showing up at meetings. CMA CGM, for example, launched a new slate of more environmentally friendly offerings it calls ACT with CMA CGM+. According to the Marseille-based carrier, shippers and non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) using ACT will be able to choose services in which their cargo is moved via its liquefied natural gas (LNG) and biofuel-powered vessels, allowing them to reduce emissions produced through shipping their goods by anywhere from 15 percent to 85 percent. Maersk also offers a biofuel transport option, and most major carriers offer some type of carbon calculator, which allow shippers to track the emissions of given services and select accordingly. DHL in October said it would replace heavy fuel oil with sustainable biofuel on select container ships to neutralize the carbon emissions of all its less-than-container load (LCL) ocean freight shipments starting Jan. 1. At the start of 2020, Kuehne + Nagel began offering carbon neutral LCL shipments by offsetting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions with investment in sustainable conservation projects. The uncertainty over how to achieve a zero-carbon future is beginning to complicate strategic capacity planning for carriers. Without a clear understanding of the technology that will be used to propel ships over the next decade-plus, container lines are pulling back on ordering new ships at a time when vessel space is reportedly maxed out in the major east–west trades. That makes it less likely that overcapacity, which plagued the industry for the better part of the last decade, will return to the sector in coming years, given that research into viable new fuel types is only in the early stages. “We are very much aware of the technology risks for ordering ships at this point,” Maersk CEO Søren Skou said on the company’s third-quarter earnings call in mid-November. “We would ideally like to figure out … what the future fuel should be and then start building ships.” Maersk’s orderbook as a percent of its existing fleet is a mere 1 percent, according to IHS Markit. Regardless of the reason, carriers simply are not ordering as many ships as they used to; the global orderbook as a percent of the existing fleet has dropped from 61 percent in 2007 and an average of 16 percent over the last five years to just 8 percent currently, Hapag-Lloyd said in its third-quarter earnings statement. Container lines also aren’t arguing with the distant time horizon for decarbonization solutions to materialize. “We strongly believe in the coming era of decarbonization and zero-carbon ships,” Hapag-Lloyd spokesperson Nils Haupt told JOC.com. “But it will still take time until we have a solution.”

Container lines

Maritime

Outlook 2021: Despite 2020 progress, long road ahead for zero-emission shipping

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But other Class I railroads will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. </div>

But other Class I railroads will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific (UP) is in preliminary discussions to acquire Norfolk Southern (NS), according to <a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/deals/railroad-operator-union-pacific-exploring-deal-for-norfolk-southern-1d06e822?mod=Searchresults_pos2&amp;page=1">The Wall Street Journal</a>, in what could become the largest freight rail merger in American history. If a deal happens, it would create the first coast-to-coast US rail network and mark a dramatic shift in the structure of US freight railroads. The transaction, which would create a mega-railroad valued at $200 billion, would far exceed the $31 billion merger between Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-regulators-approve-cp-kcs-merger-to-form-first-us-canada-mexico-rail-5192986">completed in 2023</a>. However, UP and NS bring different freight portfolios to the table, and any proposed deal is expected to draw intense scrutiny from regulators. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6046006_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Other Class I railroads BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. UP and NS share a common commitment to the principles of precision scheduled railroading (PSR), an operations philosophy that emphasizes efficiency, asset utilization and cost control. But some in the analyst community have speculated that CSX could be a potential target of UP. UP might also see more upside acquiring NS, which has underperformed CSX for several years financially and operationally. But from a freight mix perspective, UP more closely resembles CSX. Since 2018, non-intermodal cargo has accounted for 53.8% of CSX’s volume, nearly identical to Union Pacific’s 55%, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Non-intermodal accounts for just 43.4% of Norfolk Southern volume, with the majority being containerized freight. UP CEO Jim Vena has been critical of intermodal at times because it doesn’t generate the high margins of commodities such as agricultural products, petrochemicals, plastics and construction materials. “In the intermodal piece, I don’t know. I like the industrial and the bulk business,” Vena said last month at the Wells Fargo Industrials &amp; Materials Conference. “I think the railroads have made some real strategically impactful decisions on how they handle intermodal that are not helpful.” After a brief interjection from his chief financial officer, Vena added, “I didn’t say I didn’t love [intermodal customers].” UP’s CEO is a protégé of the late E. Hunter Harrison, the creator of precision scheduled railroading. PSR practitioners measure operating ratios — i.e. the percentage of revenue that is absorbed by expenses. Lower operating ratios mean more revenue flows to the bottom line, driving profits. “We have long believed that the larger carload footprint, better chemicals, autos, and export ag connectivity makes CSX a better target from a freight flow perspective,” David Vernon, an industry analyst with investment bank Bernstein Societe Generale, wrote in a note published Friday. “While the potential synergy value of a UP and CSX combination is slightly greater, it’s not that much greater.” <h3>Intermodal implications would be profound </h3>If it were approved, a transcontinental US freight railroad would cause a significant reshuffling of the domestic and international intermodal markets. Ocean carriers, for example, often sign long-term contracts for inland rail services. If a carrier currently uses BNSF on the West Coast and Norfolk Southern on the East Coast for international business, the fate of those contracts in a post-merger landscape would be uncertain. The implications for domestic intermodal would be even messier. Hub Group, Swift Intermodal and parcel giant UPS are already customers of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, but Schneider National and STG Logistics are locked into multi-year deals with CSX in the eastern US. The shakeup could be substantial for non-asset brokers, also known as intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). Union Pacific controls the EMP and UMAX 53-foot container pools, which are shared with CSX, NS, and Canadian National. A UP-NS merger could limit or eliminate CSX’s access to those pools, potentially impacting significant volumes of freight. “While intermodal channel partners would need to adapt, single line trans-con service would likely be more competitive to the highway and accelerate share shifts,” Bernstein’s Vernon noted. The largest unknown would involve J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US intermodal provider. J.B. Hunt exclusively partners with BNSF in the West and relies heavily on NS in the East, although it does put a portion of business on CSX. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to sever ties with BNSF because their relationship spans nearly four decades and includes joint Quantum service offerings in the US and Mexico. J.B. Hunt has also been critical of the PSR model employed by UP and CPKC. While J.B. Hunt could shift its East Coast operations to CSX, a combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern could wield unprecedented pricing power, potentially creating the first company with enough leverage to compete with J.B. Hunt on pricing negotiations with shippers. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific (UP) is in preliminary discussions to acquire Norfolk Southern (NS), according to The Wall Street Journal , in what could become the largest freight rail merger in American history. If a deal happens, it would create the first coast-to-coast US rail network and mark a dramatic shift in the structure of US freight railroads. The transaction, which would create a mega-railroad valued at $200 billion, would far exceed the $31 billion merger between Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern completed in 2023 . However, UP and NS bring different freight portfolios to the table, and any proposed deal is expected to draw intense scrutiny from regulators. Other Class I railroads BNSF Railway, CSX Transportation and Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) will likely be vocal in their opposition to any deal and look to rally support from shippers to block the move, setting the stage for a contentious regulatory battle. UP and NS share a common commitment to the principles of precision scheduled railroading (PSR), an operations philosophy that emphasizes efficiency, asset utilization and cost control. But some in the analyst community have speculated that CSX could be a potential target of UP. UP might also see more upside acquiring NS, which has underperformed CSX for several years financially and operationally. But from a freight mix perspective, UP more closely resembles CSX. Since 2018, non-intermodal cargo has accounted for 53.8% of CSX’s volume, nearly identical to Union Pacific’s 55%, according to the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Non-intermodal accounts for just 43.4% of Norfolk Southern volume, with the majority being containerized freight. UP CEO Jim Vena has been critical of intermodal at times because it doesn’t generate the high margins of commodities such as agricultural products, petrochemicals, plastics and construction materials. “In the intermodal piece, I don’t know. I like the industrial and the bulk business,” Vena said last month at the Wells Fargo Industrials & Materials Conference. “I think the railroads have made some real strategically impactful decisions on how they handle intermodal that are not helpful.” After a brief interjection from his chief financial officer, Vena added, “I didn’t say I didn’t love [intermodal customers].” UP’s CEO is a protégé of the late E. Hunter Harrison, the creator of precision scheduled railroading. PSR practitioners measure operating ratios — i.e. the percentage of revenue that is absorbed by expenses. Lower operating ratios mean more revenue flows to the bottom line, driving profits. “We have long believed that the larger carload footprint, better chemicals, autos, and export ag connectivity makes CSX a better target from a freight flow perspective,” David Vernon, an industry analyst with investment bank Bernstein Societe Generale, wrote in a note published Friday. “While the potential synergy value of a UP and CSX combination is slightly greater, it’s not that much greater.” Intermodal implications would be profound If it were approved, a transcontinental US freight railroad would cause a significant reshuffling of the domestic and international intermodal markets. Ocean carriers, for example, often sign long-term contracts for inland rail services. If a carrier currently uses BNSF on the West Coast and Norfolk Southern on the East Coast for international business, the fate of those contracts in a post-merger landscape would be uncertain. The implications for domestic intermodal would be even messier. Hub Group, Swift Intermodal and parcel giant UPS are already customers of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern, but Schneider National and STG Logistics are locked into multi-year deals with CSX in the eastern US. The shakeup could be substantial for non-asset brokers, also known as intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). Union Pacific controls the EMP and UMAX 53-foot container pools, which are shared with CSX, NS, and Canadian National. A UP-NS merger could limit or eliminate CSX’s access to those pools, potentially impacting significant volumes of freight. “While intermodal channel partners would need to adapt, single line trans-con service would likely be more competitive to the highway and accelerate share shifts,” Bernstein’s Vernon noted. The largest unknown would involve J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US intermodal provider. J.B. Hunt exclusively partners with BNSF in the West and relies heavily on NS in the East, although it does put a portion of business on CSX. J.B. Hunt is unlikely to sever ties with BNSF because their relationship spans nearly four decades and includes joint Quantum service offerings in the US and Mexico. J.B. Hunt has also been critical of the PSR model employed by UP and CPKC. While J.B. Hunt could shift its East Coast operations to CSX, a combined Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern could wield unprecedented pricing power, potentially creating the first company with enough leverage to compete with J.B. Hunt on pricing negotiations with shippers. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

Potential UP-NS tie-up would cause major shift in US intermodal market

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">MSC’s orders at two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships. </div>

MSC’s orders at two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships.

<div class="phx-topic">Three container lines, including Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Taiwan’s Yang Ming, are spending close to $4 billion on a raft of new ships to be built by Chinese and South Korean shipyards, carriers and shipyards have confirmed. The largest deals, which shipbrokers estimate at more than $1.7 billion combined, have been awarded by MSC for six 22,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered vessels. Four will be built by Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding (SWS) and two by Hengli Heavy Industry in Dalian, China. The world’s largest container line has also upsized six LNG-fueled container ships ordered from SWS last year from 19,000 TEUs to 22,000 TEUs, the shipyard said. MSC’s orders at the two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/revised-china-tonnage-tax-less-disruptive-still-costly-6005402">by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships</a>. They also take to about 30 the number of ships ordered by MSC at Chinese yards in the past year and increase MSC’s order backlog to 135 vessels totaling more than 2.3 million TEUs, according to the latest Alphaliner figures. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e01ed4f0-6075-42bf-a2f7-a63be815f7e0"></dynamic-object></div>Meanwhile, Yang Ming said it ordered seven 15,000-TEU dual-fuel container ships at a cost of up to $1.5 billion from South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean as part of its fleet renewal and expansion plan. The latest ships “will replace aging vessels and advance Yang Ming’s strategic development” when they are delivered in 2028 and 2029, the carrier said in a statement Thursday. The cost of each ship is between $194.8 million and $218.7 million, Yang Ming said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange. The vessels will be deployed on east-west routes alongside five LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered earlier and due for delivery beginning next year, the carrier said in its statement. Yang Ming said the LNG-fueled ships will achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional fuel. Continuing the ordering spree, South Korean intra-Asia operator Sinokor Merchant Marine has contracted Hyundai Heavy Industries to build four 13,000-TEU scrubber-fitted container ships at a total cost of $610 million for delivery between January and June 2028. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Three container lines, including Mediterranean Shipping Co. and Taiwan’s Yang Ming, are spending close to $4 billion on a raft of new ships to be built by Chinese and South Korean shipyards, carriers and shipyards have confirmed. The largest deals, which shipbrokers estimate at more than $1.7 billion combined, have been awarded by MSC for six 22,000-TEU liquefied natural gas-powered vessels. Four will be built by Shanghai Waigaoqiao Shipbuilding (SWS) and two by Hengli Heavy Industry in Dalian, China. The world’s largest container line has also upsized six LNG-fueled container ships ordered from SWS last year from 19,000 TEUs to 22,000 TEUs, the shipyard said. MSC’s orders at the two Chinese shipyards continue the carrier’s long association with Chinese shipbuilders, with the liner seemingly undeterred by US proposals to levy hefty port fees on Chinese-built ships . They also take to about 30 the number of ships ordered by MSC at Chinese yards in the past year and increase MSC’s order backlog to 135 vessels totaling more than 2.3 million TEUs, according to the latest Alphaliner figures. Meanwhile, Yang Ming said it ordered seven 15,000-TEU dual-fuel container ships at a cost of up to $1.5 billion from South Korean shipyard Hanwha Ocean as part of its fleet renewal and expansion plan. The latest ships “will replace aging vessels and advance Yang Ming’s strategic development” when they are delivered in 2028 and 2029, the carrier said in a statement Thursday. The cost of each ship is between $194.8 million and $218.7 million, Yang Ming said in a filing to the Taiwan stock exchange. The vessels will be deployed on east-west routes alongside five LNG dual-fuel container ships ordered earlier and due for delivery beginning next year, the carrier said in its statement. Yang Ming said the LNG-fueled ships will achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared with traditional fuel. Continuing the ordering spree, South Korean intra-Asia operator Sinokor Merchant Marine has contracted Hyundai Heavy Industries to build four 13,000-TEU scrubber-fitted container ships at a total cost of $610 million for delivery between January and June 2028. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

MSC, Yang Ming lead nearly $4 billion ordering spree for new vessels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US drayage truckers say costs and competition have been on the rise since the pandemic, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. </div>

US drayage truckers say costs and competition have been on the rise since the pandemic, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure.

<div class="phx-topic">Drayage providers across the US say their survival is under increasing threat amid rising cost pressures driven by new competition, including technology-enabled platforms. To stay in business, operators are more often turning to mergers or acquisitions to bolster their companies in a bid to hold off competitors, market players told the Journal of Commerce. Drayage truckers say their costs have been rising since COVID-19, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. “We are in a situation where new entrants, brokers and AI [artificial intelligence] are in competition with us,” said Matt Schrap, CEO of the West Coast-based Harbor Trucking Association (HTA). “The lowest price wins.” Ken Kellaway, cofounder, chairman and president of RoadOne IntermodaLogistics, which has drayage operations across the country, said a price difference of as little as $50 among competitors will win the business. “The cost pressures are the largest I have seen in my career,” Kellaway said. Last week’s announcement <a href="https://www.ajot.com/insights/full/ai-gsc-shutdown-shocks-port-of-oakland-maritime-community">by Oakland-based drayage provider GSC Enterprises that it was shutting down its operations</a> has traditional operators wondering who is next. “It’s surprising that others haven’t fallen yet,” said Robert Loya, chief operating officer at TGS Logistics. <h3>Technology threat </h3>Traditional drayage companies in Los Angeles and Long Beach, many of whom have been operating for decades in the largest US port complex, are seeing market share erode as their contract-based customers seek lower prices from brokers, some of whom use tech-enabled platforms that allow freight interests to book freight directly with their competitors, Schrap said. RoadOne, based in the Northeast, sees the technology marketplace as the latest threat because it allows brokers to increase market share without investing in trucks, facilities or equipment. “Technology platforms position themselves as tech providers, but they’re really just brokers,” he said. “They’re taking market share as fast as they can. This is not sustainable [for traditional drayage providers].” But Michael Kroul, CEO of the truck broker KTI, said technology platforms are useful in that they help brokers see where the pricing market is in each region and where the freight opportunities are. He emphasized, though, that most brokers do not use the platforms as a tool to force rates lower at the expense of traditional drayage operators. “It’s not brokers who are causing rates to go down,” he said. “We’re not the lowest rate out there.” Kroul said the pricing pressure is due to the excess capacity that came into the drayage market during the post- COVID-19 boom when cargo volumes surged. “Everyone came into the market with COVID and many of them did not leave,” he said. Because drayage capacity exceeds demand, prices continue to trend lower while operating costs over the past three years have risen. “We see what costs operators are operating at, and it’s a tragedy,” Kroul said. Operating costs in California are rising faster than in many regions due to environmental rules that require the use of cleaner fuels, with the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-clean-truck-rule-puts-california-dray-capacity-on-chopping-block-5221564">ultimate goal being to phase out the sale of diesel trucks by 2035</a>. New truck sales by then must be zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. Drayage operators are also affected by <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-lb-port-interests-spar-with-agency-over-emissions-rule-under-development-5223229">“indirect source rules”</a> under which drayage operators serving the ports and warehouses must contribute to overall reductions in emissions at those locations. “California’s drayage truckers continue to be subject to the most stringent environmental rules of any state in the country,” the California Trucking Association said in a statement. “A prolonged, challenging rate downturn combined with a crushing, unpredictable regulatory environment is endangering our members’ ability to keep cargo flowing at some of the nation’s largest and most important port complexes.” <h3>Smaller companies in danger </h3>In today’s drayage environment, both in California and nationally, smaller drayage companies are being bought out by operators with “larger bankrolls,” TGS Logistics’ Loya said. “The bigger ones are going to get bigger and the smaller ones are going to go away,” he said. “Those companies with fewer than 50 trucks are struggling.” Kellaway said brutal price competition in the industry is the root problem in drayage, and, unfortunately, bankruptcies may be the result. “If bankruptcies accelerate, then maybe customers will start to take note,” he said. Added HTA’s Schrap: “This race to the [pricing] bottom has to end.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Drayage providers across the US say their survival is under increasing threat amid rising cost pressures driven by new competition, including technology-enabled platforms. To stay in business, operators are more often turning to mergers or acquisitions to bolster their companies in a bid to hold off competitors, market players told the Journal of Commerce. Drayage truckers say their costs have been rising since COVID-19, while at the same time their pricing power is under downward pressure. “We are in a situation where new entrants, brokers and AI [artificial intelligence] are in competition with us,” said Matt Schrap, CEO of the West Coast-based Harbor Trucking Association (HTA). “The lowest price wins.” Ken Kellaway, cofounder, chairman and president of RoadOne IntermodaLogistics, which has drayage operations across the country, said a price difference of as little as $50 among competitors will win the business. “The cost pressures are the largest I have seen in my career,” Kellaway said. Last week’s announcement by Oakland-based drayage provider GSC Enterprises that it was shutting down its operations has traditional operators wondering who is next. “It’s surprising that others haven’t fallen yet,” said Robert Loya, chief operating officer at TGS Logistics. Technology threat Traditional drayage companies in Los Angeles and Long Beach, many of whom have been operating for decades in the largest US port complex, are seeing market share erode as their contract-based customers seek lower prices from brokers, some of whom use tech-enabled platforms that allow freight interests to book freight directly with their competitors, Schrap said. RoadOne, based in the Northeast, sees the technology marketplace as the latest threat because it allows brokers to increase market share without investing in trucks, facilities or equipment. “Technology platforms position themselves as tech providers, but they’re really just brokers,” he said. “They’re taking market share as fast as they can. This is not sustainable [for traditional drayage providers].” But Michael Kroul, CEO of the truck broker KTI, said technology platforms are useful in that they help brokers see where the pricing market is in each region and where the freight opportunities are. He emphasized, though, that most brokers do not use the platforms as a tool to force rates lower at the expense of traditional drayage operators. “It’s not brokers who are causing rates to go down,” he said. “We’re not the lowest rate out there.” Kroul said the pricing pressure is due to the excess capacity that came into the drayage market during the post- COVID-19 boom when cargo volumes surged. “Everyone came into the market with COVID and many of them did not leave,” he said. Because drayage capacity exceeds demand, prices continue to trend lower while operating costs over the past three years have risen. “We see what costs operators are operating at, and it’s a tragedy,” Kroul said. Operating costs in California are rising faster than in many regions due to environmental rules that require the use of cleaner fuels, with the ultimate goal being to phase out the sale of diesel trucks by 2035 . New truck sales by then must be zero-emission heavy-duty trucks. Drayage operators are also affected by “indirect source rules” under which drayage operators serving the ports and warehouses must contribute to overall reductions in emissions at those locations. “California’s drayage truckers continue to be subject to the most stringent environmental rules of any state in the country,” the California Trucking Association said in a statement. “A prolonged, challenging rate downturn combined with a crushing, unpredictable regulatory environment is endangering our members’ ability to keep cargo flowing at some of the nation’s largest and most important port complexes.” Smaller companies in danger In today’s drayage environment, both in California and nationally, smaller drayage companies are being bought out by operators with “larger bankrolls,” TGS Logistics’ Loya said. “The bigger ones are going to get bigger and the smaller ones are going to go away,” he said. “Those companies with fewer than 50 trucks are struggling.” Kellaway said brutal price competition in the industry is the root problem in drayage, and, unfortunately, bankruptcies may be the result. “If bankruptcies accelerate, then maybe customers will start to take note,” he said. Added HTA’s Schrap: “This race to the [pricing] bottom has to end.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Drayage

Port News

Drayage stakeholders say industry under threat from falling rates, increased costs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The decision cuts against what Schneider announced when it acquired Cowan last November, that Cowan’s brand would be retained and the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary.</div>

The decision cuts against what Schneider announced when it acquired Cowan last November, that Cowan’s brand would be retained and the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary.

<div class="phx-topic">Schneider National is dissolving the brokerage division of Cowan Systems, a company it <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/schneider-bolsters-us-east-coast-business-by-acquiring-cowan-systems-5824223">acquired for $390 million last November</a> to expand its dedicated truckload division. Employees of Cowan Logistics, the acquired company’s brokerage unit, were informed on Tuesday at an internal meeting that Cowan would be rebranded from Oct. 1. The decision cuts against what Schneider announced at the time of the acquisition, when it indicated that Cowan’s brand would be retained and that the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary. “As part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen and streamline our brokerage operations, Cowan Logistics will be fully integrated into Schneider Brokerage effective Oct. 1, 2025,” a spokesperson for Wisconsin-based Schneider told the Journal of Commerce. The spokesperson said the move allows Schneider to “unify our capabilities under a single brand, expand our service offerings, and better support our customers and carrier partners.” The change is specific to the brokerage division and will not affect Cowan Systems’ trucking operations, which will continue to operate independently. A company email to employees explaining the consolidation that was viewed by the Journal of Commerce said, “it became clear there were numerous opportunities to the business and [employees] to expedite growth by combining both groups and rebranding Cowan Logistics to Schneider Brokerage.” <h3>Fate of employees unclear </h3>The absorption of Cowan’s brokerage division into Schneider’s comes amid a prolonged period of intense competition among brokers as they vie for truckload freight in a market constrained by muted demand. It’s not immediately clear how many of Cowan’s brokerage employees Schneider plans to retain. A Cowan source who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Schneider “is basically retaining key employees, trucks [and] key accounts of Cowan’s.” The source said Schneider’s intent is to eliminate redundancies within its own brokerage division, and that its employees were instructed to push off discussions with customers about the dissolution of the Cowan Logistics brand until closer to October. At the time of the acquisition, the 100-year-old, Baltimore-based Cowan provided logistics, trucking, shipping and warehousing services, with a fleet of more than 1,800 trucks and about 7,500 trailers. Schneider will take over Cowan’s motor carrier (MC) number and standard carrier alpha code (SCAC), along with any of Cowan’s retained employees, clients and contracts. Until the rebranding is complete, Cowan’s leadership will largely remain in place but will report to Ben Schuchart, senior vice president of Schneider Transportation Management, and Jim Nicholson, vice president of brokerage operations for Schneider, according to the company email. Schneider is due to release its second-quarter earnings July 31. Contact Clarissa Hawes at <a href="mailto:clarissahawes@gmail.com">clarissahawes@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Schneider National is dissolving the brokerage division of Cowan Systems, a company it acquired for $390 million last November to expand its dedicated truckload division. Employees of Cowan Logistics, the acquired company’s brokerage unit, were informed on Tuesday at an internal meeting that Cowan would be rebranded from Oct. 1. The decision cuts against what Schneider announced at the time of the acquisition, when it indicated that Cowan’s brand would be retained and that the company would operate as a wholly owned subsidiary. “As part of our ongoing efforts to strengthen and streamline our brokerage operations, Cowan Logistics will be fully integrated into Schneider Brokerage effective Oct. 1, 2025,” a spokesperson for Wisconsin-based Schneider told the Journal of Commerce. The spokesperson said the move allows Schneider to “unify our capabilities under a single brand, expand our service offerings, and better support our customers and carrier partners.” The change is specific to the brokerage division and will not affect Cowan Systems’ trucking operations, which will continue to operate independently. A company email to employees explaining the consolidation that was viewed by the Journal of Commerce said, “it became clear there were numerous opportunities to the business and [employees] to expedite growth by combining both groups and rebranding Cowan Logistics to Schneider Brokerage.” Fate of employees unclear The absorption of Cowan’s brokerage division into Schneider’s comes amid a prolonged period of intense competition among brokers as they vie for truckload freight in a market constrained by muted demand. It’s not immediately clear how many of Cowan’s brokerage employees Schneider plans to retain. A Cowan source who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce Schneider “is basically retaining key employees, trucks [and] key accounts of Cowan’s.” The source said Schneider’s intent is to eliminate redundancies within its own brokerage division, and that its employees were instructed to push off discussions with customers about the dissolution of the Cowan Logistics brand until closer to October. At the time of the acquisition, the 100-year-old, Baltimore-based Cowan provided logistics, trucking, shipping and warehousing services, with a fleet of more than 1,800 trucks and about 7,500 trailers. Schneider will take over Cowan’s motor carrier (MC) number and standard carrier alpha code (SCAC), along with any of Cowan’s retained employees, clients and contracts. Until the rebranding is complete, Cowan’s leadership will largely remain in place but will report to Ben Schuchart, senior vice president of Schneider Transportation Management, and Jim Nicholson, vice president of brokerage operations for Schneider, according to the company email. Schneider is due to release its second-quarter earnings July 31. Contact Clarissa Hawes at clarissahawes@gmail.com .

Schneider National to ‘dissolve’ Cowan brokerage arm Oct. 1 in rebranding move

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Bigger carriers have more services and transshipment hubs and are generally able to offer more efficient connecting services, although there is still room to prosper for small and midsize carriers, writes Jeremy Masters.</div>

Bigger carriers have more services and transshipment hubs and are generally able to offer more efficient connecting services, although there is still room to prosper for small and midsize carriers, writes Jeremy Masters.

<div class="phx-topic">Cross-trades served by transshipment can be of varying sizes and often feature transshipment between two deep-sea services. Some will always remain small, but others linking fast-growing developing economies with each other (or mature markets) will reach a point at which direct services become viable. This is an important opportunity for carriers, transshipment hubs and end ports to be at the ground floor of high-charged growth. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6045854_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The following cross-trades and key lanes were selected to look at how carriers serve these emerging trades in both directions using their online schedules: US Gulf to South Africa (Houston to Durban) India to Central America (Mundra to Veracruz) South Africa to Australia (Durban to Sydney) East Coast of South America to West Africa (Santos to Abidjan) Except for Mundra to Veracruz, where one carrier is offering a direct product, all the other lanes/products are transshipment. These lanes give a good idea of the significant variation we see in the top five carriers’ products and why — in these particular trades at least — some are more successful than others. These excerpts will give you a flavor: For Houston to Durban, southbound transit times as advertised varied over multiple sailings, from a low of 32 days to a high of 79 days, with northbound transit from 42 to 82 days. Transshipment in both directions was offered in the Caribbean, Europe, Asia and South America and included, in some cases, double transshipment. For Mundra to Veracruz, westbound transit times varied between 48 and 82 days, with eastbound from 40 to 100 days. For the transshipment products, North Europe, Mediterranean and Asian hubs were used westbound and North Europe and Mediterranean hubs for eastbound. Double transshipment also featured in some cases. There are some common themes in the above cases and other cross-trades reviewed: <h3>Unique products create positive differentiation </h3>Having a different product that directly connects core markets also allows sub-trades operating through transshipment hubs on that service to also establish product advantage. For example, CMA CGM’s and Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s North Europe/Med/Indian Ocean/Australia service not only provides a strong product in the Med to Indian Ocean and Australia trade, but enables Southern/Eastern Africa export cargo to access a fast eastbound product over Port Louis Mauritius. A similar example is Hapag-Lloyd (with Maersk as slotter) being the only direct operator in the Brazil to South Africa and Angola market, thus giving them the driving seat in the core trade but also enabling them to open sub-markets such as Argentina and Uruguay with very strong transshipment products. <h3>Where transshipment takes place is crucial </h3>The ideal transshipment point for cross-trades is one where there is minimal diversion from the most direct route. For example, the big carriers are all routing Brazil to West Africa over Europe, but MSC has an edge on eastbound transit times because it connects in Las Palmas, Spain, which slightly reduces transit time on both legs. In the US Gulf to South Africa trade, MSC also has the best product because it transships from its direct US East Coast to South Africa service at Freeport (Bahamas), whereas other carriers are transshipping in Europe, Asia or South America. <h3>How transshipment products are constructed is critical </h3>Direct products normally trump transshipment products, but rotations of connecting services are important. If carriers are able to design services allowing the first leg to hit a transshipment point early in its rotation and the second leg calls there late in its rotation, the transshipment product can have a competitive transit time. We see in the Mundra-to-Veracruz pairing that Maersk, CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd’s transshipment transit times stack up okay versus MSC’s direct service. The most obvious overall observation is that the bigger carriers have more services and more transshipment hubs, so they are generally able to offer more efficient connecting services. Their larger fleet sizes also allow them to deploy innovative products and tweak them until they have a profitable service covering both direct and transshipment lanes. Is there hope for the midsized and smaller carriers? There are a number of niche direct products from smaller carriers in some trades and specific port pairs that the bigger guys treat solely as cross-trades. For the nimble, there is still room to prosper, but they will need to adapt again if the big guys lumber into town. Contact Jeremy Masters at <a href="mailto:jeremy@shippingmastershk.com">jeremy@shippingmastershk.com</a>. </div>

Cross-trades served by transshipment can be of varying sizes and often feature transshipment between two deep-sea services. Some will always remain small, but others linking fast-growing developing economies with each other (or mature markets) will reach a point at which direct services become viable. This is an important opportunity for carriers, transshipment hubs and end ports to be at the ground floor of high-charged growth. The following cross-trades and key lanes were selected to look at how carriers serve these emerging trades in both directions using their online schedules: US Gulf to South Africa (Houston to Durban) India to Central America (Mundra to Veracruz) South Africa to Australia (Durban to Sydney) East Coast of South America to West Africa (Santos to Abidjan) Except for Mundra to Veracruz, where one carrier is offering a direct product, all the other lanes/products are transshipment. These lanes give a good idea of the significant variation we see in the top five carriers’ products and why — in these particular trades at least — some are more successful than others. These excerpts will give you a flavor: For Houston to Durban, southbound transit times as advertised varied over multiple sailings, from a low of 32 days to a high of 79 days, with northbound transit from 42 to 82 days. Transshipment in both directions was offered in the Caribbean, Europe, Asia and South America and included, in some cases, double transshipment. For Mundra to Veracruz, westbound transit times varied between 48 and 82 days, with eastbound from 40 to 100 days. For the transshipment products, North Europe, Mediterranean and Asian hubs were used westbound and North Europe and Mediterranean hubs for eastbound. Double transshipment also featured in some cases. There are some common themes in the above cases and other cross-trades reviewed: Unique products create positive differentiation Having a different product that directly connects core markets also allows sub-trades operating through transshipment hubs on that service to also establish product advantage. For example, CMA CGM’s and Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s North Europe/Med/Indian Ocean/Australia service not only provides a strong product in the Med to Indian Ocean and Australia trade, but enables Southern/Eastern Africa export cargo to access a fast eastbound product over Port Louis Mauritius. A similar example is Hapag-Lloyd (with Maersk as slotter) being the only direct operator in the Brazil to South Africa and Angola market, thus giving them the driving seat in the core trade but also enabling them to open sub-markets such as Argentina and Uruguay with very strong transshipment products. Where transshipment takes place is crucial The ideal transshipment point for cross-trades is one where there is minimal diversion from the most direct route. For example, the big carriers are all routing Brazil to West Africa over Europe, but MSC has an edge on eastbound transit times because it connects in Las Palmas, Spain, which slightly reduces transit time on both legs. In the US Gulf to South Africa trade, MSC also has the best product because it transships from its direct US East Coast to South Africa service at Freeport (Bahamas), whereas other carriers are transshipping in Europe, Asia or South America. How transshipment products are constructed is critical Direct products normally trump transshipment products, but rotations of connecting services are important. If carriers are able to design services allowing the first leg to hit a transshipment point early in its rotation and the second leg calls there late in its rotation, the transshipment product can have a competitive transit time. We see in the Mundra-to-Veracruz pairing that Maersk, CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd’s transshipment transit times stack up okay versus MSC’s direct service. The most obvious overall observation is that the bigger carriers have more services and more transshipment hubs, so they are generally able to offer more efficient connecting services. Their larger fleet sizes also allow them to deploy innovative products and tweak them until they have a profitable service covering both direct and transshipment lanes. Is there hope for the midsized and smaller carriers? There are a number of niche direct products from smaller carriers in some trades and specific port pairs that the bigger guys treat solely as cross-trades. For the nimble, there is still room to prosper, but they will need to adapt again if the big guys lumber into town. Contact Jeremy Masters at jeremy@shippingmastershk.com .

High variance exists in carriers’ cross-trade products

Use code TPM25GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 to save 20% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code TPMGW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

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

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

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

Container Shipping News | 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

Potential UP-NS tie-up would cause major shift in US intermodal market

MSC, Yang Ming lead nearly $4 billion ordering spree for new vessels

Drayage stakeholders say industry under threat from falling rates, increased costs