<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">One of the world’s largest container terminal operators is shifting its commercial strategy.</div>

One of the world’s largest container terminal operators is shifting its commercial strategy.

<div><div><img></div>A strong performance at Rotterdam in the third quarter drove much of APM Terminals' volume gains in the period. Photo credit: ShutterstockOne of the world’s largest container terminal operators is shifting its commercial strategy to focus more on inland services for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) over investment in deep-sea terminal infrastructure.APM Terminals is investing in the development of more direct and closer business relationships with BCOs and offering more value-added services beyond the terminal gate.“Liner customers are <a>rapidly becoming fewer</a> but there are thousands of landside customers large and small for us to also focus on. We have always done...

A strong performance at Rotterdam in the third quarter drove much of APM Terminals' volume gains in the period. Photo credit: Shutterstock One of the world’s largest container terminal operators is shifting its commercial strategy to focus more on inland services for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) over investment in deep-sea terminal infrastructure. APM Terminals is investing in the development of more direct and closer business relationships with BCOs and offering more value-added services beyond the terminal gate. “Liner customers are rapidly becoming fewer but there are thousands of landside customers large and small for us to also focus on. We have always done business with these customers and it is important for us to serve them well and ensure a better flow through the whole supply chain,” said chief commercial officer Henrik Lundgaard Pedersen. Pedersen said the shift in strategy would result in more investment in people, products, facilities, and technologies to improve inland services such as distribution from ports to consumer markets, storage, and container stuffing and consolidation. Improving processes at the terminal gate to better integrate the port infrastructure with the supply chains of importers and exporters is also part of the effort. The shift toward direct shipper service puts APM Terminals closer in line with fellow Maersk unit Damco, a freight forwarder and supply chain provider, and other third-party logistics companies. “We will invest in these kinds of services and the facilities to provide them better service throughout the world. These investments are typically much smaller than those required to develop deep-sea terminal infrastructure.” The shift in focus will involve a higher level of direct engagement with BCO customers. Terminal operators have in the past been somewhat reluctant to engage directly with the customers of their main customers. This will now be central to the commercial strategy of Maersk-owned APM Terminals in an environment of rising consolidation among container shipping lines in the form of larger liner network alliances, mergers, and acquisitions. Pedersen said it was unlikely APM Terminals would invest in new deep-sea terminals in the coming years and the company was focused on completing pipeline terminal projects including those in Italy, Costa Rica, Morocco, and Ghana . “We have put a lot of capital into the ground over the past number of years and will take a breather from this for a while. We have such a massive portfolio that we will continue to divest non-core assets, but overall we are still a net investor [in deep-sea terminal infrastructure].” APM Terminals is divesting its majority shareholding in its Zeebrugge operation in Belgium to COSCO Shipping Ports in a deal that closed last week . The company currently operates 76 container terminals across the globe. Its largest footprint is in Asia, where it has 20 operating facilities. The focus on inland services may well become a new frontier of competition for global terminal operators in an era of lower overall levels of demand, overcapacity in certain markets , and rising competition from new kinds of investors. China’s big three global terminal operators — China Merchants Port Holdings, Cosco Shipping Ports, and Shanghai International Port Group — have quadrupled to more than 40 the number of overseas locations where they are invested in the past five years. The four traditional terminal global terminal operators — APM Terminals, DP World, Hutchison Port Holdings, and PSA International — together operate terminals in more than 80 locations globally. A large number of the investments by Chinese companies in global port infrastructure under the Belt and Road program include projects beyond the terminal gate such as industrial zones, port community platforms, and transport infrastructure connecting terminals with hinterland markets. APM Terminals’ inland service network currently comprises around 120 operations in 37 countries and provides services such as inland transportation, warehousing and container storage, and cleaning and repair services. Its inland services intermodal facility in Mexico City, for instance, links all of the major ports to the main consumer market in the Central American country by rail and also does last-mile container distribution. The facility handles 100 percent of Mexico-related shipments for Walmart, Mattel, and Hasbro. APM Terminals is currently working to further reduce transit times from its terminal at Lázaro Cárdenas to Mexico City for landside customers serving Mexico City. Other examples of inland services offered by the company at the moment include stuffing and transporting containers for banana exporters in Ivory Coast; storing imported containers in Ghana and delivering them to customers by truck once they have been cleared by Customs, and weighing containers for export to provide verified gross mass information at multiple ports. In the past two years, APM Terminals opened five new regional reefer depots in Peru aimed at supporting potential growth in exports of asparagus, avocadoes, grapes, and blueberries. The depots are located in the key agricultural areas of the country and provide reefer services, container cranes, spare parts, skilled labor, cross-dock warehousing, and trucking to link the production regions with Peru’s two container ports. “When an agri-exporter needs a reefer container for loading fresh cut grapes, it takes less than one hour to have a reefer with the precise temperature ready for loading. Before it could take up to 36 to 48 hours,” said Pedersen. Two or three more locations will be opened by the terminal operator in 2018 to connect the agricultural regions with the APM Terminals facility at Callao Port. Pedersen said APM Terminals will continue to focus strongly on improving services to its liner customers. “We will continue to do our utmost to improve productivity and efficiency for the benefit of our liner customers. We are ramping up efforts to serve them and have seen a few good wins in that area over the past few months.” APM Terminals reported a year-over-year drop in underlying profit of 13 percent for the third quarter to $110 million. The company reported a net operating loss of $267 million and a negative return on invested capital of 13.3 percent, mainly owing to impairments of $374 million that it said were related to terminals in countries with challenging market conditions. Strong volumes at Rotterdam in The Netherlands and APM Terminal’s joint venture terminals in China drove a 6.5 percent increase in containers handled to 10.2 million TEU in the quarter, but revenue fell from $1.062 billion to $1.024 billion. Year-to-date revenue is down by around 2 percent overall, to $3.021 billion. Average terminal utilization was 64 percent in the quarter, down from 70 percent last year. Excluding terminals that started operations this year — Lázaro Cárdenas in Mexico; Izmir in Turkey, and Quetzal in Guatemala — utilization was down by 2 percent. APM Terminals handled 29.4 million TEU during first nine months of the year, up from 27.6 million TEU in the same period in 2016. Pedersen said he expects terminal operators will continue to come under pressure from liner customers to reduce tariffs. “There is no doubt rate pressure will continue, in part because of consolidation on the liner side and also because of overcapacity in some ports. What matters at the end of the day is that we keep our focus on addressing customers’ needs by continuing to develop great products and services, that will best enable them to address their end-customers’ challenges. We are constantly looking for ways we can better serve our clients, whether it is through higher productivity, offering new services, or just simply through being more responsive and faster with sharing information.” Contact Turloch Mooney at turloch.mooney@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @TurlochMooney .A version of this story also appeared on IHS Fairplay, a sister product of JOC.com within IHS Markit.

Marine terminals

APM Terminals makes inland services a commercial focus

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The customs agency will prioritize unliquidated entries in the first phase of the refund process that was instigated by the February Supreme Court decision to invalidate tariffs on most US trading partners.</div>

The customs agency will prioritize unliquidated entries in the first phase of the refund process that was instigated by the February Supreme Court decision to invalidate tariffs on most US trading partners.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Refunds of tariffs paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) will start April 20 under a phased rollout, according to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cbp-lays-out-initial-tariff-refund-plan-that-requires-minimal-work-from-importers-6183418">refund process</a>, which will come as welcome news to importers, is being managed through a new tool, called Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE), that is being built within CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment Secure Data Portal (ACE Portal). The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-supreme-court-rules-against-trump-in-critical-ieepa-tariff-case-6173568">US Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20</a> that the Trump administration improperly used IEEPA to justify widespread tariffs the US slapped on virtually all of its trading partners beginning in the spring of 2025. That decision shifted details on the refund process to the US Court of International Trade, which instructed CBP to avoid delaying refunds to US importers that had collectively paid more than $150 billion in IEEPA tariffs. The first phase of the refund process prioritizes so-called unliquidated entries and liquidated entries that are fewer than 80 days old. A liquidated entry means CBP has completed the final assessment of duties, taxes and fees, making the entry legal and closed. CBP has said that the refund process will take up to 45 days once a CAPE declaration has been filed, but the agency has issued no formal timeline for when refunds might actually land in the accounts of importers. To apply for IEEPA tariff refunds, importers must either have an ACE portal account or an automated clearing house (ACH) account so they can receive the refunds. Customs experts have advised importers to set up both to avoid delays in the refund process. If a customs broker or other third party is authorized by an importer to act as a notify party on a customs entry, and if the broker is set up to receive refunds electronically, that party can receive refunds via ACH on behalf of an importer. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Refunds of tariffs paid under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) will start April 20 under a phased rollout, according to US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). The refund process , which will come as welcome news to importers, is being managed through a new tool, called Consolidated Administration and Processing of Entries (CAPE), that is being built within CBP’s Automated Commercial Environment Secure Data Portal (ACE Portal). The US Supreme Court ruled on Feb. 20 that the Trump administration improperly used IEEPA to justify widespread tariffs the US slapped on virtually all of its trading partners beginning in the spring of 2025. That decision shifted details on the refund process to the US Court of International Trade, which instructed CBP to avoid delaying refunds to US importers that had collectively paid more than $150 billion in IEEPA tariffs. The first phase of the refund process prioritizes so-called unliquidated entries and liquidated entries that are fewer than 80 days old. A liquidated entry means CBP has completed the final assessment of duties, taxes and fees, making the entry legal and closed. CBP has said that the refund process will take up to 45 days once a CAPE declaration has been filed, but the agency has issued no formal timeline for when refunds might actually land in the accounts of importers. To apply for IEEPA tariff refunds, importers must either have an ACE portal account or an automated clearing house (ACH) account so they can receive the refunds. Customs experts have advised importers to set up both to avoid delays in the refund process. If a customs broker or other third party is authorized by an importer to act as a notify party on a customs entry, and if the broker is set up to receive refunds electronically, that party can receive refunds via ACH on behalf of an importer. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Supply chain

First wave of IEEPA refunds to US importers to start April 20: CBP

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The doubling in bunker fuel prices in some key hubs since the war in the Middle East began six weeks ago is focusing industry attention on energy costs as supply scarcity worsens.</div>

The doubling in bunker fuel prices in some key hubs since the war in the Middle East began six weeks ago is focusing industry attention on energy costs as supply scarcity worsens.

<div class="phx-topic">Elevated energy prices due to the war in Iran are complicating, and in some cases slowing, some annual trans-Pacific service contract negotiations between container lines and US importers as emergency fees push up container spot rates. Bunker fuel prices, which doubled in many key hubs in the days after the war in the Middle East began disrupting oil supply six weeks ago, have focused shippers’ attention on how the higher carrier operating costs will be passed onto them via bunker adjustment factors (BAFs) and emergency bunker fuel surcharges. Container lines can give few assurances on the limits to the higher costs their customers face as shipowners scramble to secure fuel supplies for May and June amid worsening scarcity. Still, there is little concern that the increased attention on the fuel component of freight rates will derail finalizing 2026–27 service contracts, which typically go in effect May 1. The last time attention to fuel — which is generally treated as a simple pass-through cost within contracts — complicated contract talks was in 2019, ahead of impending low-sulfur regulations. This year, the impact of the war has helped carriers secure higher rates than last year, even when fuel was excluded, two container line executives said. Unlike in past years when negotiated contract rates slipped in early March, one of the carrier executives noted his pricing power increased as the impact of the war widened. The war began on Feb. 28. But increased annual costs from labor, port tariffs and landside transport make most of the contract rate gains a wash compared with rate levels secured last year, the two executives said. Container spot rates, as measured by various indexes, have been rising steadily since late February and early March before ascending even higher in early April. Emergency fuel surcharges began taking effect in the first week of April, following a 30-day review by maritime regulators. The cost to ship an FEU from Shanghai to Los Angeles hit $2,910 in the week ending April 9, a $900 increase from six weeks prior, according to Drewry’s World Container Index. <h3>Higher pass-on costs </h3>Container lines have imperfect means to recoup higher fuel costs and the additional costs accrued through disruption. BAFs can lag up to 90 days, hampering carriers’ cash flow in the meantime. US maritime regulators have prevented carriers from immediately implementing emergency surcharges, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-again-rejects-maersk-petition-to-waive-notice-period-for-emergency-fuel-surcharge-6199261">forcing them to adhere to the 30-day notice period</a>, as required by US shipping law. The war has had minimal direct impact on container shipping, affecting just 1% to 2% of the total global capacity that typically transits the Strait of Hormuz. But the growing scarcity of bunker fuel in Asia has forced some ships to alter routings to refuel at alternative hubs, thus burning more fuel and accruing higher operating costs, a third carrier executive said. The rejection by Chinese authorities of emergency bunker fuel surcharges has further complicated efforts by carriers to recoup higher costs from exporters in China. The severity of emergency surcharges varies by carrier, but all are easily in the hundreds of dollars to ship an FEU from Asia to the US West Coast. US importers shipping contracted cargo can also be subject to emergency bunker fuel surcharges even if language within their contract restricts such fees. That is prompting discussions during contract negotiations about just how much exposure cargo owners face from future fees. Shippers and forwarders are also trying to resist attempts by some carriers to calculate BAFs on a monthly rather than quarterly basis. “I can’t mask my frustration about this. The fuel charge in the contract becomes nothing more than a glorified [freight-all-kinds] rate,” a forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. “It nullifies our ability to get longer-term rates for purposes of stability and visibility.” <h3>War volatility outstrips BAF </h3>A fourth carrier executive explained that the BAF was a “pre-war mechanism” that worked well when bunker fuel prices were relatively stable. But the recent surge in oil prices since March is adding literally <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/war-adding-40-50-million-per-week-to-hapag-lloyds-costs-ceo-6193532">millions of dollars a week to carriers’ costs</a>. “When oil prices come back down — whenever that is — I don’t think anyone thinks that the price [of bunker fuel] will stay like this,” the carrier source said. “The rate will go back down to the pre-war rate.” The second-quarter BAF shouldn’t be too onerous for most shippers since it will mostly reflect the far less volatile January and February fuel prices, said Jason Cook, chief executive of Ardent Global Logistics. A sustained period of higher fuel prices through March and into the second quarter, however, will mean much higher BAF charges are coming in the third quarter. Shippers may try to frontload third-quarter cargo throughout May and June to avoid paying the higher BAF, he said. “For the second quarter, the BAF should be pretty mild,” Cook said. “It won’t really show up until the third quarter.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mailto:mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. Senior editors Michael Angell and Bill Mongelluzzo contributed to this report. </div>

Elevated energy prices due to the war in Iran are complicating, and in some cases slowing, some annual trans-Pacific service contract negotiations between container lines and US importers as emergency fees push up container spot rates. Bunker fuel prices, which doubled in many key hubs in the days after the war in the Middle East began disrupting oil supply six weeks ago, have focused shippers’ attention on how the higher carrier operating costs will be passed onto them via bunker adjustment factors (BAFs) and emergency bunker fuel surcharges. Container lines can give few assurances on the limits to the higher costs their customers face as shipowners scramble to secure fuel supplies for May and June amid worsening scarcity. Still, there is little concern that the increased attention on the fuel component of freight rates will derail finalizing 2026–27 service contracts, which typically go in effect May 1. The last time attention to fuel — which is generally treated as a simple pass-through cost within contracts — complicated contract talks was in 2019, ahead of impending low-sulfur regulations. This year, the impact of the war has helped carriers secure higher rates than last year, even when fuel was excluded, two container line executives said. Unlike in past years when negotiated contract rates slipped in early March, one of the carrier executives noted his pricing power increased as the impact of the war widened. The war began on Feb. 28. But increased annual costs from labor, port tariffs and landside transport make most of the contract rate gains a wash compared with rate levels secured last year, the two executives said. Container spot rates, as measured by various indexes, have been rising steadily since late February and early March before ascending even higher in early April. Emergency fuel surcharges began taking effect in the first week of April, following a 30-day review by maritime regulators. The cost to ship an FEU from Shanghai to Los Angeles hit $2,910 in the week ending April 9, a $900 increase from six weeks prior, according to Drewry’s World Container Index. Higher pass-on costs Container lines have imperfect means to recoup higher fuel costs and the additional costs accrued through disruption. BAFs can lag up to 90 days, hampering carriers’ cash flow in the meantime. US maritime regulators have prevented carriers from immediately implementing emergency surcharges, forcing them to adhere to the 30-day notice period , as required by US shipping law. The war has had minimal direct impact on container shipping, affecting just 1% to 2% of the total global capacity that typically transits the Strait of Hormuz. But the growing scarcity of bunker fuel in Asia has forced some ships to alter routings to refuel at alternative hubs, thus burning more fuel and accruing higher operating costs, a third carrier executive said. The rejection by Chinese authorities of emergency bunker fuel surcharges has further complicated efforts by carriers to recoup higher costs from exporters in China. The severity of emergency surcharges varies by carrier, but all are easily in the hundreds of dollars to ship an FEU from Asia to the US West Coast. US importers shipping contracted cargo can also be subject to emergency bunker fuel surcharges even if language within their contract restricts such fees. That is prompting discussions during contract negotiations about just how much exposure cargo owners face from future fees. Shippers and forwarders are also trying to resist attempts by some carriers to calculate BAFs on a monthly rather than quarterly basis. “I can’t mask my frustration about this. The fuel charge in the contract becomes nothing more than a glorified [freight-all-kinds] rate,” a forwarder told the Journal of Commerce. “It nullifies our ability to get longer-term rates for purposes of stability and visibility.” War volatility outstrips BAF A fourth carrier executive explained that the BAF was a “pre-war mechanism” that worked well when bunker fuel prices were relatively stable. But the recent surge in oil prices since March is adding literally millions of dollars a week to carriers’ costs . “When oil prices come back down — whenever that is — I don’t think anyone thinks that the price [of bunker fuel] will stay like this,” the carrier source said. “The rate will go back down to the pre-war rate.” The second-quarter BAF shouldn’t be too onerous for most shippers since it will mostly reflect the far less volatile January and February fuel prices, said Jason Cook, chief executive of Ardent Global Logistics. A sustained period of higher fuel prices through March and into the second quarter, however, will mean much higher BAF charges are coming in the third quarter. Shippers may try to frontload third-quarter cargo throughout May and June to avoid paying the higher BAF, he said. “For the second quarter, the BAF should be pretty mild,” Cook said. “It won’t really show up until the third quarter.” Contact Mark Szakonyi at  mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com . Senior editors Michael Angell and Bill Mongelluzzo contributed to this report.

Maritime

Container lines

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

War-driven fuel costs add new twist to trans-Pacific service contract talks

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While the $4.2 billion transaction still requires approvals from the Israeli government, it points to an appetite for consolidation among carriers despite the lack of financial distress that accompanied earlier merger eras. </div>

While the $4.2 billion transaction still requires approvals from the Israeli government, it points to an appetite for consolidation among carriers despite the lack of financial distress that accompanied earlier merger eras.

<div class="phx-topic">Could another round of container shipping consolidation be approaching? Hapag-Lloyd’s planned $4.2 billion acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, announced in February, shows a growing appetite among carriers for scale, including through consolidation, despite the lack of financial hardship that drove earlier rounds of industry mergers and aquisitions. The risk of falling behind is acute. No. 1 carrier Mediterranean Shipping Co., at 21.6% of the global fleet by capacity following a massive expansion since the pandemic, is now more than three times the size of No. 5 Hapag-Lloyd and No. 6 Ocean Network Express (ONE), according to Alphaliner rankings. MSC has accounted for 33.6% of total container carrier fleet growth since 2000, according to the analyst. As a result, midsize carriers — even those firmly within the top 10 — are realizing the urgency of building scale to remain competitive with the top carriers, pursuing that goal by aggressively acquiring tonnage and potentially considering the possibility of once unthinkable M&amp;A. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6202639_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“With post-COVID and the outsized profits from that time period, you are seeing carriers focus on a ‘core’ or ‘integrator’ strategy, but in both cases, scale is still key,” Brian Nemeth, global co-leader of logistics and transportation at Alix Partners, told the Journal of Commerce. A “core” strategy would be a focus on ocean shipping and terminals while “integrator” refers to end-to-end activities including origin consolidation, warehousing, last-mile and visibility. With fewer large carriers remaining — the top 10 control more than 85% percent of the fleet today versus 48% in 1996, according to analyst Lars Jensen — merger opportunities are harder to find, although any further deals would continue a longstanding industry trend. “The liner shipping industry has seen a persistent drive towards consolidation for more than 30 years,” Jensen wrote in his book Liner Shipping 2025, published in 2017. While the Zim deal still requires approvals from the Israeli government, the fact Hapag-Lloyd was able to overcome national security and other obstacles in signing the merger agreement shows that deals some might have regarded as impossible may in fact be within reach. “I was somewhat surprised that Zim would do a deal like Hapag, for many reasons including cultural differences, but also from the point of view of Israeli national security,” consultant and former senior Maersk executive Robbert van Trooijen told the Journal of Commerce. “The fact they found a solution to this, assuming [the deal closes], they have proven there are solutions to be found,” he said. <h3>The vulnerability of midsize carriers </h3>For example, would Japan ever allow Ocean Network Express (ONE), which consolidated its three largest ocean carriers in 2017, to be merged into a larger combined carrier? As important as the trade-dependent nation views shipping, some believe ONE is sub-scale in the current environment, a point that could apply to several other Asian carriers. A deal to privatize South Korea’s HMM <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hmms-48-billion-share-sale-is-scrapped-over-management-control-issue-5215009">collapsed in 2024</a> but could one day be revived. “Assume in the next three to five years the industry, which has an unprecedented order book of 35% of the global existing fleet, enters a downturn,” van Trooijen said. “There must be a moment where the 1-2 million TEU players start asking themselves, ‘where do we see ourselves 10 years from now?’” The record 35% order book as a percentage of the existing fleet by itself illustrates top carriers’ aggressive pursuit of scale. As of December, the top 10 carriers controlled 79% of the order book, although the actual figure is likely near 85% when expected long-term charters are figured in, according to Alphaliner chief analyst Jan Tiedemann. Under its “2030 Strategy” unveiled in 2024, ONE aims to increase its capacity to 3 million TEUs, a 42% increase from its current fleet size. In March, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/one-boosts-ownership-stake-in-seaspan-parent-poseidon-6184045">it increased its stake to 48.9% in the parent company of Seaspan</a>, the largest non-operating owner of container ships. HMM in its own 2030 strategy plan also aims to double its fleet size. Increasing the vulnerability of midsize carriers is the possibility the alliances they participate in break up, leaving them at the mercy of larger carriers to expand market coverage beyond what their own fleet capacity can provide. “Hapag-Lloyd leaving its prior alliance to join up with Maersk shows you can’t always depend on stable alliances,” van Trooijen said, observing an emerging disconnect between smaller carriers’ aggressive vessel orders in pursuit of scale and their underlying commercial ability to fill the ships. “In other words [in the event their alliance breaks up], the smaller players run the risk of being left out in the cold where they have big ships but don’t have scale to support that,” he added. “That could very well happen.” <h3>Carriers in good position to withstand downturn </h3>That is further reason why the Hapag/Zim deal, coming at a time when carriers remain flush with cash from the pandemic and thus, according to some, are well-prepared to weather any downturn associated with the high order book, may represent a turning point. “When we look at the industry and when we look at this downturn which we are talking about, I think the industry is very well-prepared,” S&amp;P Global analyst Rahul Kapoor told TPM26 in March. Indeed, according to Alix Partners, the Hapag/Zim deal was announced amid a strong financial phase for the industry, a change from the prior consolidation wave culminating in 2016 and 2017 when the industry was on much shakier ground financially, illustrated by the Hanjin bankruptcy in August 2016. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="6f095f56-8498-498c-b802-0e167eafd666"></dynamic-object></div>For the container shipping industry, Alix’s “Altman Z” score, which measures the likelihood of bankruptcy (the lower the number, the greater the risk), was 1.19 in 2016. That was the year of the Hanjin bankruptcy, the Cosco/China Shipping merger, CMA CGM’s acquisition of APL, Maersk announcing plans to buy Hamburg Sud, and key milestones in the Hapag-Lloyd/United Arab Shipping merger that was finalized in 2017. By 2025, it was more than twice as high, indicating much greater financial health, the Alix data shows. Van Trooijen believes there exists a window for carriers to engage in consolidation deals while they are financially robust in order to address the structural inequities before they become increasingly apparent As he <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/in-wake-of-zim-deal-the-time-for-industry-consolidation-is-now-6179297">wrote on JOC.com recently</a>: “The container shipping industry stands at a pivotal moment. Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves combine to create a rare window in which transformative deals are both feasible and strategically rational.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Could another round of container shipping consolidation be approaching? Hapag-Lloyd’s planned $4.2 billion acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services, announced in February, shows a growing appetite among carriers for scale, including through consolidation, despite the lack of financial hardship that drove earlier rounds of industry mergers and aquisitions. The risk of falling behind is acute. No. 1 carrier Mediterranean Shipping Co., at 21.6% of the global fleet by capacity following a massive expansion since the pandemic, is now more than three times the size of No. 5 Hapag-Lloyd and No. 6 Ocean Network Express (ONE), according to Alphaliner rankings. MSC has accounted for 33.6% of total container carrier fleet growth since 2000, according to the analyst. As a result, midsize carriers — even those firmly within the top 10 — are realizing the urgency of building scale to remain competitive with the top carriers, pursuing that goal by aggressively acquiring tonnage and potentially considering the possibility of once unthinkable M&A. “With post-COVID and the outsized profits from that time period, you are seeing carriers focus on a ‘core’ or ‘integrator’ strategy, but in both cases, scale is still key,” Brian Nemeth, global co-leader of logistics and transportation at Alix Partners, told the Journal of Commerce. A “core” strategy would be a focus on ocean shipping and terminals while “integrator” refers to end-to-end activities including origin consolidation, warehousing, last-mile and visibility. With fewer large carriers remaining — the top 10 control more than 85% percent of the fleet today versus 48% in 1996, according to analyst Lars Jensen — merger opportunities are harder to find, although any further deals would continue a longstanding industry trend. “The liner shipping industry has seen a persistent drive towards consolidation for more than 30 years,” Jensen wrote in his book Liner Shipping 2025, published in 2017. While the Zim deal still requires approvals from the Israeli government, the fact Hapag-Lloyd was able to overcome national security and other obstacles in signing the merger agreement shows that deals some might have regarded as impossible may in fact be within reach. “I was somewhat surprised that Zim would do a deal like Hapag, for many reasons including cultural differences, but also from the point of view of Israeli national security,” consultant and former senior Maersk executive Robbert van Trooijen told the Journal of Commerce. “The fact they found a solution to this, assuming [the deal closes], they have proven there are solutions to be found,” he said. The vulnerability of midsize carriers For example, would Japan ever allow Ocean Network Express (ONE), which consolidated its three largest ocean carriers in 2017, to be merged into a larger combined carrier? As important as the trade-dependent nation views shipping, some believe ONE is sub-scale in the current environment, a point that could apply to several other Asian carriers. A deal to privatize South Korea’s HMM collapsed in 2024 but could one day be revived. “Assume in the next three to five years the industry, which has an unprecedented order book of 35% of the global existing fleet, enters a downturn,” van Trooijen said. “There must be a moment where the 1-2 million TEU players start asking themselves, ‘where do we see ourselves 10 years from now?’” The record 35% order book as a percentage of the existing fleet by itself illustrates top carriers’ aggressive pursuit of scale. As of December, the top 10 carriers controlled 79% of the order book, although the actual figure is likely near 85% when expected long-term charters are figured in, according to Alphaliner chief analyst Jan Tiedemann. Under its “2030 Strategy” unveiled in 2024, ONE aims to increase its capacity to 3 million TEUs, a 42% increase from its current fleet size. In March, it increased its stake to 48.9% in the parent company of Seaspan , the largest non-operating owner of container ships. HMM in its own 2030 strategy plan also aims to double its fleet size. Increasing the vulnerability of midsize carriers is the possibility the alliances they participate in break up, leaving them at the mercy of larger carriers to expand market coverage beyond what their own fleet capacity can provide. “Hapag-Lloyd leaving its prior alliance to join up with Maersk shows you can’t always depend on stable alliances,” van Trooijen said, observing an emerging disconnect between smaller carriers’ aggressive vessel orders in pursuit of scale and their underlying commercial ability to fill the ships. “In other words [in the event their alliance breaks up], the smaller players run the risk of being left out in the cold where they have big ships but don’t have scale to support that,” he added. “That could very well happen.” Carriers in good position to withstand downturn That is further reason why the Hapag/Zim deal, coming at a time when carriers remain flush with cash from the pandemic and thus, according to some, are well-prepared to weather any downturn associated with the high order book, may represent a turning point. “When we look at the industry and when we look at this downturn which we are talking about, I think the industry is very well-prepared,” S&P Global analyst Rahul Kapoor told TPM26 in March. Indeed, according to Alix Partners, the Hapag/Zim deal was announced amid a strong financial phase for the industry, a change from the prior consolidation wave culminating in 2016 and 2017 when the industry was on much shakier ground financially, illustrated by the Hanjin bankruptcy in August 2016. For the container shipping industry, Alix’s “Altman Z” score, which measures the likelihood of bankruptcy (the lower the number, the greater the risk), was 1.19 in 2016. That was the year of the Hanjin bankruptcy, the Cosco/China Shipping merger, CMA CGM’s acquisition of APL, Maersk announcing plans to buy Hamburg Sud, and key milestones in the Hapag-Lloyd/United Arab Shipping merger that was finalized in 2017. By 2025, it was more than twice as high, indicating much greater financial health, the Alix data shows. Van Trooijen believes there exists a window for carriers to engage in consolidation deals while they are financially robust in order to address the structural inequities before they become increasingly apparent As he wrote on JOC.com recently : “The container shipping industry stands at a pivotal moment. Record fleet expansion, widening scale disparities, and lingering financial reserves combine to create a rare window in which transformative deals are both feasible and strategically rational.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Hapag-Zim deal could ignite another merger wave in container shipping

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Prices have more than doubled since the war started, and with fuel comprising almost 30% of operating expenses, the Hong Kong-based carrier has been forced to reduce capacity.</div>

Prices have more than doubled since the war started, and with fuel comprising almost 30% of operating expenses, the Hong Kong-based carrier has been forced to reduce capacity.

<div class="phx-topic">Cathay Pacific became the latest carrier to announce flight cuts and hikes in fuel surcharges in response to sky-high jet fuel prices that threaten to erase profitability on some routes. The Hong Kong-based airline, one of the world’s largest cargo carriers, will reduce capacity by at least 2% from mid-May to the end of June, joining United Airlines, Air India, Air New Zealand, Delta Airlines, and Vietnam Airways in trimming services to reduce fuel costs that typically comprise almost 30% of an airline’s operating cost. The price of jet fuel has surged since the Middle East war began on Feb. 28. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the average jet fuel price in Asia and Oceania in the week ending April 10 was $217.34 per barrel, increasing from $99.40/b in the week ending Feb. 27. “In the past month, we have pursued every suitable means to keep our flights operating as normal ... this includes adjusting the fuel surcharges in an attempt to mitigate the surge in jet fuel prices,” Cathay Pacific said in a statement Saturday. “Despite our best efforts, the measures we have taken to mitigate the heightened fuel costs have not been enough.” The Cathay Pacific cuts will involve regional flights and some to Australia, South Asia and South Africa. The carrier has also extended the suspension of flights to Dubai and Riyadh until June 30 “in view of the ongoing situation in the Middle East.” Asia sources most of its jet fuel supply from the Persian Gulf, and airports in the region have been particularly hard hit by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Supply shortages have caused Vietnam Airlines to cancel 20% of its flights, while Korean Air said it has tightened internal cost-cutting measures and moved into “emergency management mode.” <h3>Fuel surcharges shoot higher </h3>Cost pressures on airlines are being amplified by sharp increases in pricing components across specific routes, according to consultancy Drewry. Fuel surcharges from Singapore to London jumped by as much as 290% in March compared with the previous month, while security surcharges rose 44% month over month on shipments from Dubai and Abu Dhabi to Amsterdam. A similar trend is emerging on India-Europe routes, where March all-in rates from Mumbai and Delhi to Madrid rose by an average of 27% in March, with a 21% surge in fuel surcharges. “The air freight market has been dealt a two-fold blow of reduced effective available capacity and increased fuel costs,” said Philip Damas, head of Drewry’s logistics practice. “About one-half of the international airfreight routes monitored by Drewry have witnessed a month-over-month price increase of 20% or greater in March 2026.” About 30% of Asia-Europe air cargo was typically routed through Middle East hubs before the war began, mostly via Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the UAE and Doha in Qatar. Carriers based in those airports are among the world’s largest air freight operators — Qatar Airways is the world’s number three air cargo carrier, Emirates Skycargo is fourth, and Etihad is number 17. A significant volume of air freight also flows through Bahrain and Kuwait. Frederic Horst, managing director of Sydney-based Trade and Transport Group, said Kuwait and Bahrain would usually see about 300 and 240 flights a day, respectively, but in the last month the average has been two a day. “Overall, the main Gulf-facing airports are handling about 32% to 35% of their usual flights,” he said. “UAE airports are higher at about 34% to 38% and flight activity is primarily driven by home-base carriers.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Cathay Pacific became the latest carrier to announce flight cuts and hikes in fuel surcharges in response to sky-high jet fuel prices that threaten to erase profitability on some routes. The Hong Kong-based airline, one of the world’s largest cargo carriers, will reduce capacity by at least 2% from mid-May to the end of June, joining United Airlines, Air India, Air New Zealand, Delta Airlines, and Vietnam Airways in trimming services to reduce fuel costs that typically comprise almost 30% of an airline’s operating cost. The price of jet fuel has surged since the Middle East war began on Feb. 28. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the average jet fuel price in Asia and Oceania in the week ending April 10 was $217.34 per barrel, increasing from $99.40/b in the week ending Feb. 27. “In the past month, we have pursued every suitable means to keep our flights operating as normal ... this includes adjusting the fuel surcharges in an attempt to mitigate the surge in jet fuel prices,” Cathay Pacific said in a statement Saturday. “Despite our best efforts, the measures we have taken to mitigate the heightened fuel costs have not been enough.” The Cathay Pacific cuts will involve regional flights and some to Australia, South Asia and South Africa. The carrier has also extended the suspension of flights to Dubai and Riyadh until June 30 “in view of the ongoing situation in the Middle East.” Asia sources most of its jet fuel supply from the Persian Gulf, and airports in the region have been particularly hard hit by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Supply shortages have caused Vietnam Airlines to cancel 20% of its flights, while Korean Air said it has tightened internal cost-cutting measures and moved into “emergency management mode.” Fuel surcharges shoot higher Cost pressures on airlines are being amplified by sharp increases in pricing components across specific routes, according to consultancy Drewry. Fuel surcharges from Singapore to London jumped by as much as 290% in March compared with the previous month, while security surcharges rose 44% month over month on shipments from Dubai and Abu Dhabi to Amsterdam. A similar trend is emerging on India-Europe routes, where March all-in rates from Mumbai and Delhi to Madrid rose by an average of 27% in March, with a 21% surge in fuel surcharges. “The air freight market has been dealt a two-fold blow of reduced effective available capacity and increased fuel costs,” said Philip Damas, head of Drewry’s logistics practice. “About one-half of the international airfreight routes monitored by Drewry have witnessed a month-over-month price increase of 20% or greater in March 2026.” About 30% of Asia-Europe air cargo was typically routed through Middle East hubs before the war began, mostly via Dubai and Abu Dhabi in the UAE and Doha in Qatar. Carriers based in those airports are among the world’s largest air freight operators — Qatar Airways is the world’s number three air cargo carrier, Emirates Skycargo is fourth, and Etihad is number 17. A significant volume of air freight also flows through Bahrain and Kuwait. Frederic Horst, managing director of Sydney-based Trade and Transport Group, said Kuwait and Bahrain would usually see about 300 and 240 flights a day, respectively, but in the last month the average has been two a day. “Overall, the main Gulf-facing airports are handling about 32% to 35% of their usual flights,” he said. “UAE airports are higher at about 34% to 38% and flight activity is primarily driven by home-base carriers.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

Cathay Pacific cuts flights as soaring jet fuel prices hit operating costs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The railroads say they plan to file an updated merger application on April 30, addressing many of the complaints that caused regulators to deem their original application “incomplete.”</div>

The railroads say they plan to file an updated merger application on April 30, addressing many of the complaints that caused regulators to deem their original application “incomplete.”

<div class="phx-topic">Newport, Rhode Island — Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) say an updated merger application they plan to file with US regulators on April 30 will include revised forecasts on truck-to-rail conversions, clearer explanations of key proposals, and specific changes aimed at addressing critics of the deal. Executives from the two railroads, speaking Thursday at the North East Association of Rail Shippers (NEARS) Conference, said they’ve received traffic data from competitors BNSF Railway, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City and CSX Transportation through a reciprocal discovery process. The data was not included in the original merger application that was <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stb-rejects-up-ns-merger-application-as-incomplete-6154074">deemed “incomplete” by the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) in mid-January</a>. UP and NS believe the revised filing will convince regulators that combining the rail networks to create the US’ first transcontinental railroad would enhance competition and pull traffic off US highways. “We’ve now gone back, we’ve redone that work with 100% of the carload [volume] files from all the railroads,” Todd Rynaski, UP’s senior vice president of strategy, said at the NEARS event. “All of that work landed us about at the same spot, although [with a] little bit of shift between intermodal and carload [forecasts]. We feel very confident in the initial thesis.” In the original application, UP and NS forecast 2 million overall conversions to rail, including 1.17 million truckload conversions to intermodal. <h3>‘Committed Gateway Pricing’ </h3>Mike McClellan, chief strategy officer for NS, said the updated filing will better explain what the railroads call “Committed Gateway Pricing.” The program would give CSX Transportation and BNSF preset rates for traffic moving over a combined UP-NS network, allowing those railroads to quote a single end-to-end price more quickly to shippers. It would apply only to manifest carload freight, not intermodal. The railroads say the aim is to generate instant rate quotes and make rail more competitive with trucking. “We're going to spend a lot more time, really one-on-one, with the participating railroads and the shippers, especially, to make sure that they fully understand what it is, how it works, and the benefits,” McClellan said at the conference. “That was probably the most misunderstood part of the [original] application.” <h3>Addressing St. Louis </h3>UP and NS also said the revised application will clarify their plans for the Terminal Railroad Association (TRRA) of St. Louis, the switching railroad jointly owned by five of the six North American Class I railroads that helps move freight through the city. Instead of each railroad managing its own traffic in St. Louis, the TRRA receives railcars and then organizes trains to cross the Mississippi River and handoff to other Class I railroads. The arrangement is intended to keep traffic flowing safely and in an orderly fashion through a major interchange location. Under the proposed transaction, Union Pacific would inherit Norfolk Southern’s stake and gain a majority of seats on the TRRA board of directors. CSX has argued that Union Pacific could use that position to influence access and pricing across the river. The STB agreed that the issue raised significant enough competitive concerns to classify the TRRA stake proposal as a “major transaction” and that the original application understated the competitive risks in St. Louis. “We do not intend to ever control the TRRA, and we’ve got that outlined explicitly in the revised application,” Rynaski said. <h3>Meridian Speedway solution requires cash </h3>Although the STB declined to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stb-declines-to-intervene-on-meridian-speedway-dispute-6187000">intercede in a dispute over the Meridian Speedway</a>, there is a growing understanding that the issue must be resolved for the merger transaction to yield the rewards detailed in the application. The dispute centers around a 300-mile stretch of track between Shreveport, Louisiana, and Meridian, Mississippi, that is critical for UP and NS to connect Southern California to the US Southeast. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC), which operates the Meridian joint venture with Norfolk Southern, has enforced an 8,500-foot train length limit based on siding capacity, rejecting efforts by UP and NS to run 11,000-foot trains. CPKC owns a majority stake in the joint venture, so it dictates the rules. UP has complained that containers take too long to cross the Meridian Speedway because of the restrictions. The original application, however, envisioned 11,000-foot trains moving between the West Coast and Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville despite CPKC’s current restriction. McClellan described Norfolk Southern’s relationship with CPKC as “wobbly,” but said he expects UP, NS, and CPKC to reach a solution on Meridian, likely by extending several sidings along the route to handle longer trains. “Over time, I’m sure, we’ll have a very constructive conversation with [CPKC] to put money in the ground to make these issues go away,” he said. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Newport, Rhode Island — Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS) say an updated merger application they plan to file with US regulators on April 30 will include revised forecasts on truck-to-rail conversions, clearer explanations of key proposals, and specific changes aimed at addressing critics of the deal. Executives from the two railroads, speaking Thursday at the North East Association of Rail Shippers (NEARS) Conference, said they’ve received traffic data from competitors BNSF Railway, Canadian National, Canadian Pacific Kansas City and CSX Transportation through a reciprocal discovery process. The data was not included in the original merger application that was deemed “incomplete” by the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) in mid-January . UP and NS believe the revised filing will convince regulators that combining the rail networks to create the US’ first transcontinental railroad would enhance competition and pull traffic off US highways. “We’ve now gone back, we’ve redone that work with 100% of the carload [volume] files from all the railroads,” Todd Rynaski, UP’s senior vice president of strategy, said at the NEARS event. “All of that work landed us about at the same spot, although [with a] little bit of shift between intermodal and carload [forecasts]. We feel very confident in the initial thesis.” In the original application, UP and NS forecast 2 million overall conversions to rail, including 1.17 million truckload conversions to intermodal. ‘Committed Gateway Pricing’ Mike McClellan, chief strategy officer for NS, said the updated filing will better explain what the railroads call “Committed Gateway Pricing.” The program would give CSX Transportation and BNSF preset rates for traffic moving over a combined UP-NS network, allowing those railroads to quote a single end-to-end price more quickly to shippers. It would apply only to manifest carload freight, not intermodal. The railroads say the aim is to generate instant rate quotes and make rail more competitive with trucking. “We're going to spend a lot more time, really one-on-one, with the participating railroads and the shippers, especially, to make sure that they fully understand what it is, how it works, and the benefits,” McClellan said at the conference. “That was probably the most misunderstood part of the [original] application.” Addressing St. Louis UP and NS also said the revised application will clarify their plans for the Terminal Railroad Association (TRRA) of St. Louis, the switching railroad jointly owned by five of the six North American Class I railroads that helps move freight through the city. Instead of each railroad managing its own traffic in St. Louis, the TRRA receives railcars and then organizes trains to cross the Mississippi River and handoff to other Class I railroads. The arrangement is intended to keep traffic flowing safely and in an orderly fashion through a major interchange location. Under the proposed transaction, Union Pacific would inherit Norfolk Southern’s stake and gain a majority of seats on the TRRA board of directors. CSX has argued that Union Pacific could use that position to influence access and pricing across the river. The STB agreed that the issue raised significant enough competitive concerns to classify the TRRA stake proposal as a “major transaction” and that the original application understated the competitive risks in St. Louis. “We do not intend to ever control the TRRA, and we’ve got that outlined explicitly in the revised application,” Rynaski said. Meridian Speedway solution requires cash Although the STB declined to intercede in a dispute over the Meridian Speedway , there is a growing understanding that the issue must be resolved for the merger transaction to yield the rewards detailed in the application. The dispute centers around a 300-mile stretch of track between Shreveport, Louisiana, and Meridian, Mississippi, that is critical for UP and NS to connect Southern California to the US Southeast. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC), which operates the Meridian joint venture with Norfolk Southern, has enforced an 8,500-foot train length limit based on siding capacity, rejecting efforts by UP and NS to run 11,000-foot trains. CPKC owns a majority stake in the joint venture, so it dictates the rules. UP has complained that containers take too long to cross the Meridian Speedway because of the restrictions. The original application, however, envisioned 11,000-foot trains moving between the West Coast and Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville despite CPKC’s current restriction. McClellan described Norfolk Southern’s relationship with CPKC as “wobbly,” but said he expects UP, NS, and CPKC to reach a solution on Meridian, likely by extending several sidings along the route to handle longer trains. “Over time, I’m sure, we’ll have a very constructive conversation with [CPKC] to put money in the ground to make these issues go away,” he said. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

Surface

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Revised UP-NS merger application will address deficiencies, critics concerns

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The latest 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.

International ports

Longshore labor

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

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

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

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

First wave of IEEPA refunds to US importers to start April 20: CBP

War-driven fuel costs add new twist to trans-Pacific service contract talks

Hapag-Zim deal could ignite another merger wave in container shipping