<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Colombo had respectable container volume growth last year, but saw its dominance over Indian cargo begin to slip following cabotage reform enacted in mid-2018.</div>

Colombo had respectable container volume growth last year, but saw its dominance over Indian cargo begin to slip following cabotage reform enacted in mid-2018.

3629201_FI.jpg

<div>Has the tide begun to turn for Indian containerized supply chains that have long heavily relied on foreign transshipment due to limited direct mainline calls, following the abolition of cabotage restrictions aimed at prioritizing direct shipping? A granular analysis of new port data obtained by JOC.com for Sri Lanka’s Port of Colombo, which commands the bulk of Indian transshipment cargo, suggests so, albeit an early measure of success.With the cabotage reform enacted in May 2018, foreign-flag carriers gained access to Indian coastal markets for the movement of laden export-import containers for transshipment and empty containers for repositioning, thus paving the...

Has the tide begun to turn for Indian containerized supply chains that have long heavily relied on foreign transshipment due to limited direct mainline calls, following the abolition of cabotage restrictions aimed at prioritizing direct shipping? A granular analysis of new port data obtained by JOC.com for Sri Lanka’s Port of Colombo, which commands the bulk of Indian transshipment cargo, suggests so, albeit an early measure of success. With the cabotage reform enacted in May 2018, foreign-flag carriers gained access to Indian coastal markets for the movement of laden export-import containers for transshipment and empty containers for repositioning, thus paving the way for more cargo aggregation opportunities and new direct call additions. Colombo had respectable growth last year but saw its dominance over Indian cargo loosen drastically amid large-scale capacity expansion efforts. To illustrate, the port’s 2019 throughput stood at 7.2 million TEU, up 3 percent year over year, of which Indian transshipment cargo contributed 4.6 million TEU, a sharp fall from the 5.5 million TEU out of 7.05 million TEU in 2018. That downward trend is even more pronounced when looking at Colombo’s mainstay transshipment figures in isolation, inasmuch as Indian relayed freight contributions shrank to 78 percent, against a total 5.9 million TEU of transshipment, from 96 percent out of 5.7 million TEU in 2018. Another notable takeaway is that much of last year’s growth came from cargo to/from other ports in the region — Karachi, Chittagong, and Dubai. Bangladeshi 2019 cargo totaled 59,552 TEU, up from 52,043 TEU previously. That analysis seemingly corroborates the Container Shipping Lines Association of India's viewpoint on incremental cargo gains at Indian ports, pegged at 100,000 TEU a month. The addition of direct calls at Indian eastern ports usually engaged in feeder activities has tilted the balance away from Colombo transshipment, a trend that could gain further traction as shippers settle into alternative shipping options, along with expanded coastal networks over other larger Indian ports. “A direct South India-Europe loop with expansive India port coverage is a blow for Colombo,” a major carrier agent based in Colombo told JOC. That observation is rooted in a joint service between Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express (ONE) that debuted in October with five southern India port calls. The weekly service deploys nine vessels with an average capacity of 6,500 TEU each, offering ample tonnage for the east coast market that currently sends in and out approximately 4.7 million TEU annually. Wan Hai Lines also broadened its intra-Asia CI-2 Service to include direct calls at Tuticorin and Cochin. Indian market takes $300 million hit Anecdotal industry estimates put the burden of Colombo transshipping on Indian trade at $300 million annually and, as such, fixing that protracted issue is paramount if Indian goods were to become more competitive globally. While the first signs of breakthrough in taming Colombo transshipment are noteworthy, much of the potential to improve logistics costs for domestic cargo owners is tied to India’s hub development, with DP World's Vallarpadam Terminal at Cochin in the spotlight. Vallarpadam, designed to recapture Indian transshipment cargo, is about 300 nautical miles from Colombo. But the high hopes around Vallarpadam have yet to translate into reality, notwithstanding steady overall growth. Vallarpadam’s volumes increased from 366,376 TEU in fiscal 2014-15 to 594,592 TEU in 2018-19, but it has remained bearish in its transshipment outlook thus far — from 17,007 TEU to 30,159 TEU, respectively — a problem the Dubai-based company attributes to high vessel-related charges. But the terminal is marshalling all the strategies and tools at its command to bolster hub activity, including beefing up coastal feeder and rail networks that took to a new level with last month’s weekly intermodal launch designed to feed/receive cargo shipped on the new Europe service. No doubt, port charges have been a major carrier concern, but a tariff reworking — on which some signs are emerging — on its own may not completely change the game for India as transshipment activity revolves around the orchestration of several other factors, with global carrier relationships playing a pivotal role. “Shipping lines have long-standing relationships with the Sri Lankan maritime industry, and they see no reason to break existing robust arrangements just for the sake of moving transshipment to an Indian port,” a local industry leader told JOC.com. “But the Indian cabotage change has been a bold step.” Bency Mathew can be contacted at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

International ports

Indian efforts to tame Colombo transshipment bearing fruit

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">As tariff fatigue sets in, US retailers are concentrating more on their product delivery needs rather than adjusting their supply chains on the fly to the vagaries of the Trump administration’s trade policy.</div>

As tariff fatigue sets in, US retailers are concentrating more on their product delivery needs rather than adjusting their supply chains on the fly to the vagaries of the Trump administration’s trade policy.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The whiplash reality of the Trump administration’s tariff policy is no longer driving sharp swings in import volumes from Asia, but expectations of more blank sailings to curb the capacity overhang in the trans-Pacific could still jostle the weakening inbound trade. US retailers are giving less thought to the tariffs in terms of their ordering for the rest of the year, having gained at least some degree of clarity through the several trade deals that have been announced to date. Importantly, a growing number of retail logistics managers and importers, exhausted by the US’ ever-shifting trade policy, have given up on trying to beat moving tariff deadlines. “It doesn’t seem that tariffs and trade deals are quite the driving factor that they had been as recently as six to eight weeks ago,” Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of sales for North America at the forwarder MOL Consolidation Services, told the Journal of Commerce. “The import community has kind of decided, ‘It is what it is, and we can’t control it, but what we can control is just making sure our freight is on the shelf when we need it.’” Indeed, the prospects of a final rush of cargo tied to US trade policy announcements are fading, even if some forwarders and carriers hold out for a final pop in volumes in August. “Strategic planning and long-term decision-making based on tariff deadlines makes no sense because you just don’t know what those deadlines will be from week to week,” the logistics manager of a national furniture retailer told the Journal of Commerce. Ocean carriers <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/looming-august-tariff-deadline-prompts-carriers-to-pull-trans-pacific-capacity-6045526">plan to deploy less tonnage</a> from Asia to the United States in August than in July, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. So far, ocean carriers are planning to blank less capacity next month than in July, although carriers warn that may change as container spot rates keep falling. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="88ff376b-3b44-447f-ae0f-22d6a0011592"></dynamic-object></div>Spot rates, a measure of how capacity matches up with demand, have been falling since late May and early June, according to various indexes. At a little more than $2,000 per FEU, spot rates from China to the US West Coast are down 70% from a year ago, according to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index. Some cargo owner customers are still uncertain whether the Aug. 1 deadline — in which the 10% blanket tariff on all US imports will revert to higher levels for countries that haven’t hashed out an agreement with the Trump administration — will hold, a carrier executive said. He added that while some tariff-related price increases have taken place, they haven’t blunted consumer demand enough to have a noticeable impact on import volumes. One automotive industry importer said that at the current 10% reciprocal tariff rate, his company can move product as the sector has absorbed that level. “However, we will not take product into the US at rates above 15% to 20% as some countries have negotiated,” he said. “We have completely pulled out of China due to tariffs.” <h3>GRIs unlikely to stick </h3>While carriers may attempt to impose general rate increases (GRIs) on the first and 15th of each month, forwarders and importers on the trans-Pacific <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/pause-in-tariff-hikes-drives-big-gains-in-trans-pacific-spot-rates-6017111">do not expect any further rate hikes this peak season to stick.</a> “There’s no impetus to keep prices high,” Nothdurft said. “I don’t know what the carriers are banking on in August, but it doesn’t appear that those ships are full, either.” A steady stream of frontloading of fall and holiday merchandise has taken the wind out of carrier attempts to sustain price increases. “A lot of cargo for the rest of the year is already here in the US so there is no need for anyone to rush any huge amounts of cargo into the US for the next few months,” said Sanjay Tejwani, chief executive officer at the consulting firm 365 Logistics. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="a2606c91-b30c-4219-b617-9491b44b6af1"></dynamic-object></div>Even some carriers agree that the extensive frontloading that has already taken place in the eastbound trans-Pacific means cargo volumes may drop off dramatically in the fourth quarter. “I think it’s going to be a bad Q4,” a carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce. For importers, planning their supply chains while attempting to balance the cost of ocean transportation with the delivery of their product to store shelves on schedule requires the use of several forms of shipping. John Pace, senior manager of global logistics at Revelyst, a manufacturer of outdoor performance gear, said that for merchandise that was ordered months ago and is scheduled to be delivered this summer and fall, he can use the preferred mode of regular ocean shipping. As delivery deadlines approach for products with tighter deadlines, he will shift some shipments to expedited ocean service with guaranteed next-day container availability landside. Pace said he will use air freight as a last resort. 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>

The whiplash reality of the Trump administration’s tariff policy is no longer driving sharp swings in import volumes from Asia, but expectations of more blank sailings to curb the capacity overhang in the trans-Pacific could still jostle the weakening inbound trade. US retailers are giving less thought to the tariffs in terms of their ordering for the rest of the year, having gained at least some degree of clarity through the several trade deals that have been announced to date. Importantly, a growing number of retail logistics managers and importers, exhausted by the US’ ever-shifting trade policy, have given up on trying to beat moving tariff deadlines. “It doesn’t seem that tariffs and trade deals are quite the driving factor that they had been as recently as six to eight weeks ago,” Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of sales for North America at the forwarder MOL Consolidation Services, told the Journal of Commerce. “The import community has kind of decided, ‘It is what it is, and we can’t control it, but what we can control is just making sure our freight is on the shelf when we need it.’” Indeed, the prospects of a final rush of cargo tied to US trade policy announcements are fading, even if some forwarders and carriers hold out for a final pop in volumes in August. “Strategic planning and long-term decision-making based on tariff deadlines makes no sense because you just don’t know what those deadlines will be from week to week,” the logistics manager of a national furniture retailer told the Journal of Commerce. Ocean carriers plan to deploy less tonnage from Asia to the United States in August than in July, according to ocean visibility provider eeSea. So far, ocean carriers are planning to blank less capacity next month than in July, although carriers warn that may change as container spot rates keep falling. Spot rates, a measure of how capacity matches up with demand, have been falling since late May and early June, according to various indexes. At a little more than $2,000 per FEU, spot rates from China to the US West Coast are down 70% from a year ago, according to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index. Some cargo owner customers are still uncertain whether the Aug. 1 deadline — in which the 10% blanket tariff on all US imports will revert to higher levels for countries that haven’t hashed out an agreement with the Trump administration — will hold, a carrier executive said. He added that while some tariff-related price increases have taken place, they haven’t blunted consumer demand enough to have a noticeable impact on import volumes. One automotive industry importer said that at the current 10% reciprocal tariff rate, his company can move product as the sector has absorbed that level. “However, we will not take product into the US at rates above 15% to 20% as some countries have negotiated,” he said. “We have completely pulled out of China due to tariffs.” GRIs unlikely to stick While carriers may attempt to impose general rate increases (GRIs) on the first and 15th of each month, forwarders and importers on the trans-Pacific do not expect any further rate hikes this peak season to stick. “There’s no impetus to keep prices high,” Nothdurft said. “I don’t know what the carriers are banking on in August, but it doesn’t appear that those ships are full, either.” A steady stream of frontloading of fall and holiday merchandise has taken the wind out of carrier attempts to sustain price increases. “A lot of cargo for the rest of the year is already here in the US so there is no need for anyone to rush any huge amounts of cargo into the US for the next few months,” said Sanjay Tejwani, chief executive officer at the consulting firm 365 Logistics. Even some carriers agree that the extensive frontloading that has already taken place in the eastbound trans-Pacific means cargo volumes may drop off dramatically in the fourth quarter. “I think it’s going to be a bad Q4,” a carrier executive told the Journal of Commerce. For importers, planning their supply chains while attempting to balance the cost of ocean transportation with the delivery of their product to store shelves on schedule requires the use of several forms of shipping. John Pace, senior manager of global logistics at Revelyst, a manufacturer of outdoor performance gear, said that for merchandise that was ordered months ago and is scheduled to be delivered this summer and fall, he can use the preferred mode of regular ocean shipping. As delivery deadlines approach for products with tighter deadlines, he will shift some shipments to expedited ocean service with guaranteed next-day container availability landside. Pace said he will use air freight as a last resort. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

US tariff volatility no longer driving trans-Pacific trade plans

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">J.B. Hunt Transport and Knight-Swift Transportation — the largest US truckload providers — are shifting assets within their networks as shippers react to supply chain challenges created by higher US tariffs on imports. </div>

J.B. Hunt Transport and Knight-Swift Transportation — the largest US truckload providers — are shifting assets within their networks as shippers react to supply chain challenges created by higher US tariffs on imports.

<div class="phx-topic">Trucking companies convinced that the soft US freight market will extend into 2026 are doubling down on cost-cutting initiatives, with large truckload carriers looking to shed even more underutilized assets while seeking other budget areas to trim. They’re also shifting assets within their networks as shippers react to supply chain challenges created by higher US tariffs on imports. Excess capacity, however, remains a drag on truckload revenue and pricing. Despite low single-digit gains in contract rates, shippers still dominate the truckload market. Freight flows at Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings “shifted meaningfully from normal patterns” in the second quarter, CEO Adam Miller said during an earnings call last week. “While the import cliff that many anticipated did not prove to be as stark, there was a general softness in freight demand for most of the quarter, especially on the West Coast,” Miller said. That pushed Knight-Swift’s truckload subsidiaries to seek freight in other lanes as imports dropped and freight moving inland from California ebbed. “We are staying close with our customers as the situation unfolds,” Miller said, with the company shifting capacity across the map as shippers react quickly to changing import flows to manage inventory levels. Imports at US ports dropped 11.8% from April to May and were down 6.4% year over year in May, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-retailers-upgrade-import-forecast-after-tariff-deadline-extended-to-aug-1-6040890">according to the Global Port Tracker (GPT) released by Hackett Associates and the National Retail Federation in early July</a>. The GPT forecast called for a 14.6% increase in containerized US imports this month from June, as shippers pushed to get freight to the US before higher tariffs on many trading partners take effect Aug. 1. <h3>Added complexity </h3>Changes in trade policy affected the timing and direction of freight flows at J.B. Hunt Transport Services in the second quarter, according to Spencer Frazier, the company’s executive vice president of sales and marketing. “Some customers have pulled freight forward, some continue to execute demand-driven strategies and others are making changes to their country of origin and manufacturing plans,” Frazier said during a recent second-quarter earnings call. “This added complexity, lack of accurate forecasts and potential for volatility is why our <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-says-surcharges-necessary-to-maintain-peak-season-service-6044880">peak season surcharge programs</a> [for intermodal rail] are starting earlier this year,” he added. But neither J.B. Hunt nor Knight-Swift — the largest and second-largest US truckload providers, respectively — reported enough tightening in truck capacity to turn the market away from shippers. “We think it’s going to be a slow process for capacity to exit the market,” Miller told analysts. “The question would be what’s going to happen with demand.” <h3>Reshuffling capacity </h3>Since 2022, large truckload carriers have cut capacity, sometimes steeply, as freight demand and truckload spot and contract rates declined. Significant cuts in actual truck counts brought the Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index down from 93.2 in the second quarter of 2022 to 74.9 in the first quarter of this year. The second-quarter 2025 reading for the index, which tracks actual truck counts at large publicly owned truckload companies, will be released in August. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b78888c4-1c6e-40c4-a3f6-ec06b7a7b511"></dynamic-object></div>Knight-Swift cut its average truckload tractor count by 6.6% year over year in the second quarter and by 6.3% in the first half of 2025. But the holding company is adding less-than-truckload (LTL) capacity. “We’ve gotten pretty smart in a way we haven’t been in the past about how to move assets between our divisions,” CFO Andrew Hess said during the earnings call. “We can take dedicated trucks out of our truckload businesses and use them in LTL day cabs,” Hess said. “We’re moving trailers out of our Swift business to U.S. Xpress and replacing more expensive lease trailers. So we are figuring out how to take advantage of all of our brands to drive efficiencies and get smarter about that.” J.B. Hunt plans $100 million in cost cuts this year, but it expanded its over-the-road truckload fleet in the second quarter in response to higher load volumes. The carrier increased its over-the-road division’s truck count 7.6% year over year to 2,041 in the last quarter as loads hauled rose nearly 13% to more than 104,000. “We are working to methodically grow [truckload] while remaining disciplined on network balance,” said Nicholas Hobbs, J.B. Hunt’s COO and president of highway and final-mile. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Trucking companies convinced that the soft US freight market will extend into 2026 are doubling down on cost-cutting initiatives, with large truckload carriers looking to shed even more underutilized assets while seeking other budget areas to trim. They’re also shifting assets within their networks as shippers react to supply chain challenges created by higher US tariffs on imports. Excess capacity, however, remains a drag on truckload revenue and pricing. Despite low single-digit gains in contract rates, shippers still dominate the truckload market. Freight flows at Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings “shifted meaningfully from normal patterns” in the second quarter, CEO Adam Miller said during an earnings call last week. “While the import cliff that many anticipated did not prove to be as stark, there was a general softness in freight demand for most of the quarter, especially on the West Coast,” Miller said. That pushed Knight-Swift’s truckload subsidiaries to seek freight in other lanes as imports dropped and freight moving inland from California ebbed. “We are staying close with our customers as the situation unfolds,” Miller said, with the company shifting capacity across the map as shippers react quickly to changing import flows to manage inventory levels. Imports at US ports dropped 11.8% from April to May and were down 6.4% year over year in May, according to the Global Port Tracker (GPT) released by Hackett Associates and the National Retail Federation in early July . The GPT forecast called for a 14.6% increase in containerized US imports this month from June, as shippers pushed to get freight to the US before higher tariffs on many trading partners take effect Aug. 1. Added complexity Changes in trade policy affected the timing and direction of freight flows at J.B. Hunt Transport Services in the second quarter, according to Spencer Frazier, the company’s executive vice president of sales and marketing. “Some customers have pulled freight forward, some continue to execute demand-driven strategies and others are making changes to their country of origin and manufacturing plans,” Frazier said during a recent second-quarter earnings call. “This added complexity, lack of accurate forecasts and potential for volatility is why our peak season surcharge programs [for intermodal rail] are starting earlier this year,” he added. But neither J.B. Hunt nor Knight-Swift — the largest and second-largest US truckload providers, respectively — reported enough tightening in truck capacity to turn the market away from shippers. “We think it’s going to be a slow process for capacity to exit the market,” Miller told analysts. “The question would be what’s going to happen with demand.” Reshuffling capacity Since 2022, large truckload carriers have cut capacity, sometimes steeply, as freight demand and truckload spot and contract rates declined. Significant cuts in actual truck counts brought the Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index down from 93.2 in the second quarter of 2022 to 74.9 in the first quarter of this year. The second-quarter 2025 reading for the index, which tracks actual truck counts at large publicly owned truckload companies, will be released in August. Knight-Swift cut its average truckload tractor count by 6.6% year over year in the second quarter and by 6.3% in the first half of 2025. But the holding company is adding less-than-truckload (LTL) capacity. “We’ve gotten pretty smart in a way we haven’t been in the past about how to move assets between our divisions,” CFO Andrew Hess said during the earnings call. “We can take dedicated trucks out of our truckload businesses and use them in LTL day cabs,” Hess said. “We’re moving trailers out of our Swift business to U.S. Xpress and replacing more expensive lease trailers. So we are figuring out how to take advantage of all of our brands to drive efficiencies and get smarter about that.” J.B. Hunt plans $100 million in cost cuts this year, but it expanded its over-the-road truckload fleet in the second quarter in response to higher load volumes. The carrier increased its over-the-road division’s truck count 7.6% year over year to 2,041 in the last quarter as loads hauled rose nearly 13% to more than 104,000. “We are working to methodically grow [truckload] while remaining disciplined on network balance,” said Nicholas Hobbs, J.B. Hunt’s COO and president of highway and final-mile. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Surface

Truckload

Trucking News

Truckload carriers balance networks as tariff uncertainty shifts demand

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Marseilles-based carrier said the unstable operating environment was disrupting trade flows and leading to growing uncertainty about demand in the major markets.</div>

The Marseilles-based carrier said the unstable operating environment was disrupting trade flows and leading to growing uncertainty about demand in the major markets.

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM on Tuesday posted a sharp drop in second-quarter net profit, with the carrier saying its performance was rattled by trade disruption following the implementation of US tariffs in early April. CFO Ramon Fernandez, during an earnings call, described the container shipping outlook as “extremely uncertain” as geopolitics and US tariffs continue to hit global trade lanes. The Marseilles-based carrier unveiled a mixed second-quarter result, with flat revenue and volume accompanied by a sharp drop in pre-tax earnings. “Many forecasters have been revising downwards [the] growth perspectives and demand for goods, so we need to see where this goes,” Fernandez said. “We have significant uncertainty on the demand side,” he added. “For the time being, we are not seeing too much impact from the latest discussions on trade issues, but one cannot prejudge that this will last forever.” The Aug. 1 extension to the 90-day pause on tariffs on countries that have yet to sign trade deals with the US expires Friday, while a separate pause on higher tariffs on Chinese goods is due to expire Aug. 14. However, reports are emerging that the pause on higher China tariffs will be extended as officials from Washington and Beijing hold trade talks this week in Sweden. In a period marked by geopolitical conflicts and tariffs, CMA CGM posted second-quarter revenue of $13.1 billion, up 0.3% year over year. But the revenue was accompanied by a 7.9% drop in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) and net profit that fell 21% to $521 million. CMA CGM’s shipping division reported volume of 5.97 million TEUs in the second quarter, virtually unchanged compared with the same period last year. Average revenue per TEU of $1,367 was a decrease of 1.2%, leading to a similar drop in total shipping revenue that came in at $8.1 billion. But it was the shipping division’s EBITDA where the disrupted markets in the second quarter were especially felt, declining 19.9% to $1.58 billion, with the EBITDA margin falling 4.5% to 19.4%. “The decline in rates, particularly on outbound trades from Asia, had a negative impact,” Fernandez said. “We continue to face operational changes such as port congestion and rerouting due to persistent geopolitical tensions in the Middle East.” <h3>Market growth offsets US volume loss </h3>Fernandez said the loss of volume from China to the US after President Donald Trump imposed 145% tariffs on April 9, then subsequently reduced them to 55%, was offset by increases in overall market volume on other trade lanes in the second quarter. “China remains the factory of the world and the export platform and is just reorganizing its export trades towards different regions of the world,” Fernandez said. Meanwhile, CMA CGM subsidiary CEVA Logistics reported second-quarter revenue of $4.6 billion, down 3.7% year over year, with EBITDA up 2% at $459 million. Challenges in the automotive market weighed on the performance of finished vehicle logistics and road transport activities, particularly in Europe. During the call with reporters, Fernandez also said CMA CGM was closely following CK Hutchison’s planned $23 billion sale of its non-China terminals. CK Hutchison is <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hutchison-confirms-chinese-investor-interest-in-blackrock-til-ports-sale-6051201">in talks with a “major strategic investor from China”</a> to join the BlackRock-Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) consortium. “We are monitoring this operation very closely, and we are naturally interested in contributing to finding a solution which has not been found yet as we speak,” he said. “This transaction, which includes 43 terminals in 23 countries, is very important for the industry. It’s important for us.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

CMA CGM on Tuesday posted a sharp drop in second-quarter net profit, with the carrier saying its performance was rattled by trade disruption following the implementation of US tariffs in early April. CFO Ramon Fernandez, during an earnings call, described the container shipping outlook as “extremely uncertain” as geopolitics and US tariffs continue to hit global trade lanes. The Marseilles-based carrier unveiled a mixed second-quarter result, with flat revenue and volume accompanied by a sharp drop in pre-tax earnings. “Many forecasters have been revising downwards [the] growth perspectives and demand for goods, so we need to see where this goes,” Fernandez said. “We have significant uncertainty on the demand side,” he added. “For the time being, we are not seeing too much impact from the latest discussions on trade issues, but one cannot prejudge that this will last forever.” The Aug. 1 extension to the 90-day pause on tariffs on countries that have yet to sign trade deals with the US expires Friday, while a separate pause on higher tariffs on Chinese goods is due to expire Aug. 14. However, reports are emerging that the pause on higher China tariffs will be extended as officials from Washington and Beijing hold trade talks this week in Sweden. In a period marked by geopolitical conflicts and tariffs, CMA CGM posted second-quarter revenue of $13.1 billion, up 0.3% year over year. But the revenue was accompanied by a 7.9% drop in earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) and net profit that fell 21% to $521 million. CMA CGM’s shipping division reported volume of 5.97 million TEUs in the second quarter, virtually unchanged compared with the same period last year. Average revenue per TEU of $1,367 was a decrease of 1.2%, leading to a similar drop in total shipping revenue that came in at $8.1 billion. But it was the shipping division’s EBITDA where the disrupted markets in the second quarter were especially felt, declining 19.9% to $1.58 billion, with the EBITDA margin falling 4.5% to 19.4%. “The decline in rates, particularly on outbound trades from Asia, had a negative impact,” Fernandez said. “We continue to face operational changes such as port congestion and rerouting due to persistent geopolitical tensions in the Middle East.” Market growth offsets US volume loss Fernandez said the loss of volume from China to the US after President Donald Trump imposed 145% tariffs on April 9, then subsequently reduced them to 55%, was offset by increases in overall market volume on other trade lanes in the second quarter. “China remains the factory of the world and the export platform and is just reorganizing its export trades towards different regions of the world,” Fernandez said. Meanwhile, CMA CGM subsidiary CEVA Logistics reported second-quarter revenue of $4.6 billion, down 3.7% year over year, with EBITDA up 2% at $459 million. Challenges in the automotive market weighed on the performance of finished vehicle logistics and road transport activities, particularly in Europe. During the call with reporters, Fernandez also said CMA CGM was closely following CK Hutchison’s planned $23 billion sale of its non-China terminals. CK Hutchison is in talks with a “major strategic investor from China” to join the BlackRock-Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) consortium. “We are monitoring this operation very closely, and we are naturally interested in contributing to finding a solution which has not been found yet as we speak,” he said. “This transaction, which includes 43 terminals in 23 countries, is very important for the industry. It’s important for us.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

CMA CGM’s Q2 earnings slide as geopolitics, tariffs hit shipping business

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

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

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

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

Breakbulk carriers

Heavy-haul transport

Asia-Europe

Breakbulk News

New Houthi attacks slash MPV northbound transits via Red Sea

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

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

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

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

Intermodal providers

North-American rail

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

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 latest port news from the Journal of Commerce spans the globe from North Carolina and Florida to Shanghai and Singapore. Port news includes port automation, terminal construction projects, the future of decarbonization and net-zero shipping, dredging, port hinterland connectivity, labor, disruption, port congestion and cargo flow.

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Marine terminals

Longshore labor

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

Port News | Journal of Commerce

Port News

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

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

Container Shipping 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

US tariff volatility no longer driving trans-Pacific trade plans

Truckload carriers balance networks as tariff uncertainty shifts demand

CMA CGM’s Q2 earnings slide as geopolitics, tariffs hit shipping business