<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 2017 Clean Air Action Plan that the ports adopted this week is an environmental document that will guide investment decisions by terminal operators and motor carriers in Southern California for the next 20 years.</div>

The 2017 Clean Air Action Plan that the ports adopted this week is an environmental document that will guide investment decisions by terminal operators and motor carriers in Southern California for the next 20 years.

<div class="phx-topic"><div class="wrapper-medium center-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5259297_1.0.jpg"></img></div>A Congressional bill introduced this week to enact federal regulations on port emissions highlights the political salience of the issue. Photo credit: ShutterstockThe <a href="https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/la-lb-ports-move-forward-major-environmental-plan_20170719.html">new zero and near-zero emission guidelines</a> the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach approved Nov. 2 for container terminal operators and harbor truckers in Southern California will be by far the strictest for any US port, and if past is precedent, other ports will adopt similar guidelines to meet their environmental goals.The good news for port users is that despite <a href="https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/shippers-fear-la-long-beachs-green-effort-will-increase-handling-costs_20161130.html">dire predictions</a> by some industry sources that these guidelines will result in inflated costs and lead to cargo diversion, equipment manufacturers are already testing some of these zero-emission units. If successful, the equipment will be mass-produced, much like what is occurring today with electric and battery-powered automobiles.If zero or near-emission yard tractors, top handlers, rubber-tired gantry cranes and drayage trucks are manufactured in commercial quantities, the cost of port-related equipment is expected to drop considerably. Furthermore, plug-in electric and battery-powered vehicles experience much lower operating and maintenance costs than diesel-powered units. This means that terminal operators and drayage companies at many US ports may opt for this technology as their first choice.The 2017 Clean Air Action Plan that the ports adopted this week is an environmental document that will guide investment decisions by terminal operators and motor carriers in Southern California for the next 20 years. The ports state that this third version of the 2006 CAAP could come at a cost of $14 billion to ports and their stakeholders by 2035.Rick Cameron, managing director of planning and environmental at the Port of Long Beach, cautioned that before assuming that they will be burdened by unreasonable costs for replacing equipment, terminal operators and drayage companies must first understand that the <a href="http://www.cleanairactionplan.org/">Clean Air Action Plan</a> that was released on Oct. 23 will not force specific technologies on the industry, nor will it enforce rigid deadlines based on yet-to-be developed technologies.Rather, the timelines for achieving zero and near-zero emissions from cargo-handling equipment by 2030 and trucks by 2035 are not requirements. Rather, they are target dates the ports hope to achieve by working with government regulatory agencies, motor carriers, terminal operators and equipment manufacturers for developing, testing, and implementing the latest pollution-reduction technologies.“These are not mandatory deadlines. They are goals,” Cameron said Friday. The ports will work with terminal operators, truckers, and equipment manufacturers to encourage use of the best-available technologies that will reduce pollution without imposing onerous costs on port tenants and their BCO customers. Where available, the ports will advocate for federal and state agency grants to help mitigate the cost of new, cleaner equipment. Some technologies, such as plug-in electric or battery-powered cargo-handling equipment or short-haul trucks, are either available today, or are in various stages of testing and could be massed produced within the coming decade, the CAAP states. As port users replace equipment, the ports will seek to encourage use of only the latest technologies. “The technologies need to be commercially available and cost-effective,” Cameron said. If terminal operators and drayage companies comply with the CAAP guidelines when they replace their equipment with units that are in compliance, they will be allowed to continue operating that cargo-handling equipment until its useful life is over, even if zero-emission technology becomes commercially available in the interim, he said.<div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5259298_1.0.jpg"></img>l</div>Most container ports today have green programs that are geared largely to the particular needs in their region, be it clean water or clean air. Most ports encourage the use of cleaner trucks, either through their own clean-truck programs such as exist in Seattle-Tacoma and Oakland, or through an industry organization known as the Coalition for Responsible Transportation.Although the joint Los Angeles-Long Beach CAAP was implemented in 2006 and updated in 2012, this latest version, dubbed CAAP 3.0, has terminal operators and drayage companies more concerned than they were by the previous roll-outs because all of the easy gains have been achieved, and future reductions in health-risk emissions and greenhouse gases will come at a large cost for what the industry views as incremental gains.That point was emphasized by <a href="https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-los-angeles/bcos-face-steep-price-tag-la-lb-clear-air-rules_20171018.html">John McLaurin</a>, president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, in an Oct. 18 address to the Propeller Club of Southern California. Citing pollution reductions in the mid-90-percent range for some pollutants since the first CAAP was implemented, McLaurin said, “According to the ports’ own data, these reductions have been achieved at a cost of between $1 billion and $2 billion. Under the proposed CAAP, the final four percent will cost over $14 billion.”To be specific, the final CAAP 3.0 document that was released on Oct. 23 cites the following pollution reductions since 2006: diesel particulate matter, down 87 percent; nitrogen oxide, down 56 percent; sulfur oxide, down 99 percent; and greenhouse gases, which have only been seriously addressed in the last few years, down 18 percent. The ports are not shy about citing these accomplishments. “The CAAP remains the most successful seaport emission-reduction effort ever implemented,” the report stated. The ports also stated that the gains were realized through the effort of port tenants, carriers, regulatory agencies, and the ports themselves.While the current CAAP focuses largely on cargo-handling equipment and trucks, the effort the past decade has also produced significant reductions in emissions from ocean vessels, harbor craft, and intermodal trains. Future pollution reductions from vessels will come largely from an <a href="http://www.imo.org/en/MediaCentre/HotTopics/GHG/Documents/FAQ_2020_English.pdf">International Maritime Organization</a> requirement for low-sulfur fuel that will take effect globally in 2020. In other areas, harbor craft are being re-engined and are burning cleaner fuels. Locomotives in California are poised to use <a href="http://getransportation.com/locomotive-and-services">Tier 4 </a>engines when they become commercially available.The main focus of the CAAP 3.0 is on reducing pollution from cargo-handling equipment and harbor drayage trucks. Cargo-handling equipment at container terminals includes yard tractors, top handlers, side handlers, gantry cranes, reach stackers, and forklifts. In Los Angeles-Long Beach, that equipment totals 3,760 units. While terminal operators say zero and near-zero technology has a long way to go in their sector, the CAAP argues that in fact technology in cargo-handling equipment is more advanced than vehicles and equipment used in other areas of the port.For example, electric (zero-emission) ship-to-shore cranes are common now in many ports. The large rubber-tired gantry cranes that lift containers into and out of the stacks are also becoming more common. The Georgia Ports Authority continues to enter into its fleet RTGs that run mostly on electricity, with only 5 percent of the energy consumed coming from diesel. The GPA stated in November 2016 that 45 of its 146 RTGs have been converted, and by 26 it will have 170 RTGs, all of which will operate primarily from electric power. At full build-out, the Port of Savannah will realize annual savings of $11 million owing to lower fuel and maintenance costs, the GPA stated.APM Terminals announced in March 2011 that it was embarking upon a program to convert and retrofit more than 400 RTGs in its global operations to operate on a combination of diesel-electric power. APMT said this will result in a 60-80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) emissions.Mark Sisson, senior port planner at AECOM, said the same scenario is developing in the area of yard tractors, where technology is developing rapidly and zero-emission yard tractors would be commercially available well in advance of the 2030 timeline in the CAAP. In a paper he authored for Port Technology International, Sisson said that because of steadily decreasing costs for batteries, and the eventual commercial production of battery-powered yard tractors, terminal operators will end up paying a premium of about $50,000 per electric yard tractor compared with a typical $125,000 diesel-powered unit.When the cost of installing the charging infrastructure is added, and the lower maintenance costs and fuel savings inherent in electric-powered vehicles are deducted, many terminal operators will choose to purchase electric-powered tractors, whether or not they are required to do so, because they will experience a net decrease in costs over the life of the equipment, Sisson said. For example, port equipment manufacturer Kalmar has stated that electric top picks may also be available in the near future. Sisson said he believes that the ports’ estimate of $14 billion in costs associated with the CAAP is much <a href="https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/port-los-angeles/path-slashing-zero-emissions-costs-california-ports-proposed_20170803.html">too high</a> given the rapid advances being made in battery technology and related areas.Battery technology for <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/05/volvo-will-only-make-electric-and-hybrid-cars-starting-in-2019/">automobiles</a> is quickly becoming a passion for manufacturers such as Tesla, Volvo, Ford, and General Motors. The Southern California ports are working with manufacturers to test zero-emission trucks in the rigorous drayage environment. According to the CAAP, there will be 70 zero-emission trucks operating in the port region by the end of 2019.Nevertheless, drayage companies continue to be scared by the 2035 target date in the CAAP for 100 percent zero emission drayage trucks. Cameron said that as with cargo-handling equipment, the date is a guideline, and even if zero-emission trucks become commercially available before then, drayage companies that meet phased-in guidelines in the CAAP that will take effect over the next 10 years will be allowed to continue operating those trucks for the rest of their useful lives.The original <a href="http://www.polb.com/environment/cleantrucks/">clean-truck</a> program in the CAAP demonstrated just how quickly a fleet can be replaced with the proper incentives and financial support from the ports and regulatory agencies. The phase-out deadlines in the clean-truck program began in 2008, and by 2010 about 90 percent of the 17,000-truck fleet in Los Angeles-Long Beach was compliant in operating 2007 or newer model vehicles. By Jan. 1, 2012, the entire fleet was compliant.The Los Angeles-Long Beach clean-truck program has been emulated to various degrees by the Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma, Oakland, and New York-New Jersey. The <a href="https://www.northeastdiesel.org/pdf/SmartWayWebinarNov2011Coalition4RespTransport.pdf">Coalition for Responsible Transportation</a> has taken the clean-truck initiative nationwide, with ports, motor carriers, and BCOs coming together voluntarily to phase out old, dirty trucks from harbor service.Cameron said Los Angeles and Long Beach have shared their best practices with other ports that have requested a dialogue in pollution-reduction methods that are of particular interest in their region. He said he expects that as advances are made in zero-emission cargo-handling equipment, other ports will turn to Los Angeles and Long Beach for advice on best practices.Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@ihsmarkit.com">bill.mongelluzzo@ihsmarkit.com</a> and follow him on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/billmongelluzzo?lang=en">@billmongelluzzo</a>.</div>

A Congressional bill introduced this week to enact federal regulations on port emissions highlights the political salience of the issue. Photo credit: Shutterstock The new zero and near-zero emission guidelines the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach approved Nov. 2 for container terminal operators and harbor truckers in Southern California will be by far the strictest for any US port, and if past is precedent, other ports will adopt similar guidelines to meet their environmental goals. The good news for port users is that despite dire predictions by some industry sources that these guidelines will result in inflated costs and lead to cargo diversion, equipment manufacturers are already testing some of these zero-emission units. If successful, the equipment will be mass-produced, much like what is occurring today with electric and battery-powered automobiles. If zero or near-emission yard tractors, top handlers, rubber-tired gantry cranes and drayage trucks are manufactured in commercial quantities, the cost of port-related equipment is expected to drop considerably. Furthermore, plug-in electric and battery-powered vehicles experience much lower operating and maintenance costs than diesel-powered units. This means that terminal operators and drayage companies at many US ports may opt for this technology as their first choice. The 2017 Clean Air Action Plan that the ports adopted this week is an environmental document that will guide investment decisions by terminal operators and motor carriers in Southern California for the next 20 years. The ports state that this third version of the 2006 CAAP could come at a cost of $14 billion to ports and their stakeholders by 2035. Rick Cameron, managing director of planning and environmental at the Port of Long Beach, cautioned that before assuming that they will be burdened by unreasonable costs for replacing equipment, terminal operators and drayage companies must first understand that the Clean Air Action Plan that was released on Oct. 23 will not force specific technologies on the industry, nor will it enforce rigid deadlines based on yet-to-be developed technologies. Rather, the timelines for achieving zero and near-zero emissions from cargo-handling equipment by 2030 and trucks by 2035 are not requirements. Rather, they are target dates the ports hope to achieve by working with government regulatory agencies, motor carriers, terminal operators and equipment manufacturers for developing, testing, and implementing the latest pollution-reduction technologies. “These are not mandatory deadlines. They are goals,” Cameron said Friday. The ports will work with terminal operators, truckers, and equipment manufacturers to encourage use of the best-available technologies that will reduce pollution without imposing onerous costs on port tenants and their BCO customers. Where available, the ports will advocate for federal and state agency grants to help mitigate the cost of new, cleaner equipment. Some technologies, such as plug-in electric or battery-powered cargo-handling equipment or short-haul trucks, are either available today, or are in various stages of testing and could be massed produced within the coming decade, the CAAP states. As port users replace equipment, the ports will seek to encourage use of only the latest technologies. “The technologies need to be commercially available and cost-effective,” Cameron said. If terminal operators and drayage companies comply with the CAAP guidelines when they replace their equipment with units that are in compliance, they will be allowed to continue operating that cargo-handling equipment until its useful life is over, even if zero-emission technology becomes commercially available in the interim, he said. l Most container ports today have green programs that are geared largely to the particular needs in their region, be it clean water or clean air. Most ports encourage the use of cleaner trucks, either through their own clean-truck programs such as exist in Seattle-Tacoma and Oakland, or through an industry organization known as the Coalition for Responsible Transportation. Although the joint Los Angeles-Long Beach CAAP was implemented in 2006 and updated in 2012, this latest version, dubbed CAAP 3.0, has terminal operators and drayage companies more concerned than they were by the previous roll-outs because all of the easy gains have been achieved, and future reductions in health-risk emissions and greenhouse gases will come at a large cost for what the industry views as incremental gains. That point was emphasized by John McLaurin , president of the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, in an Oct. 18 address to the Propeller Club of Southern California. Citing pollution reductions in the mid-90-percent range for some pollutants since the first CAAP was implemented, McLaurin said, “According to the ports’ own data, these reductions have been achieved at a cost of between $1 billion and $2 billion. Under the proposed CAAP, the final four percent will cost over $14 billion.” To be specific, the final CAAP 3.0 document that was released on Oct. 23 cites the following pollution reductions since 2006: diesel particulate matter, down 87 percent; nitrogen oxide, down 56 percent; sulfur oxide, down 99 percent; and greenhouse gases, which have only been seriously addressed in the last few years, down 18 percent. The ports are not shy about citing these accomplishments. “The CAAP remains the most successful seaport emission-reduction effort ever implemented,” the report stated. The ports also stated that the gains were realized through the effort of port tenants, carriers, regulatory agencies, and the ports themselves. While the current CAAP focuses largely on cargo-handling equipment and trucks, the effort the past decade has also produced significant reductions in emissions from ocean vessels, harbor craft, and intermodal trains. Future pollution reductions from vessels will come largely from an International Maritime Organization requirement for low-sulfur fuel that will take effect globally in 2020. In other areas, harbor craft are being re-engined and are burning cleaner fuels. Locomotives in California are poised to use Tier 4 engines when they become commercially available. The main focus of the CAAP 3.0 is on reducing pollution from cargo-handling equipment and harbor drayage trucks. Cargo-handling equipment at container terminals includes yard tractors, top handlers, side handlers, gantry cranes, reach stackers, and forklifts. In Los Angeles-Long Beach, that equipment totals 3,760 units. While terminal operators say zero and near-zero technology has a long way to go in their sector, the CAAP argues that in fact technology in cargo-handling equipment is more advanced than vehicles and equipment used in other areas of the port. For example, electric (zero-emission) ship-to-shore cranes are common now in many ports. The large rubber-tired gantry cranes that lift containers into and out of the stacks are also becoming more common. The Georgia Ports Authority continues to enter into its fleet RTGs that run mostly on electricity, with only 5 percent of the energy consumed coming from diesel. The GPA stated in November 2016 that 45 of its 146 RTGs have been converted, and by 26 it will have 170 RTGs, all of which will operate primarily from electric power. At full build-out, the Port of Savannah will realize annual savings of $11 million owing to lower fuel and maintenance costs, the GPA stated. APM Terminals announced in March 2011 that it was embarking upon a program to convert and retrofit more than 400 RTGs in its global operations to operate on a combination of diesel-electric power. APMT said this will result in a 60-80 percent reduction in carbon dioxide (greenhouse gas) emissions. Mark Sisson, senior port planner at AECOM, said the same scenario is developing in the area of yard tractors, where technology is developing rapidly and zero-emission yard tractors would be commercially available well in advance of the 2030 timeline in the CAAP. In a paper he authored for Port Technology International, Sisson said that because of steadily decreasing costs for batteries, and the eventual commercial production of battery-powered yard tractors, terminal operators will end up paying a premium of about $50,000 per electric yard tractor compared with a typical $125,000 diesel-powered unit. When the cost of installing the charging infrastructure is added, and the lower maintenance costs and fuel savings inherent in electric-powered vehicles are deducted, many terminal operators will choose to purchase electric-powered tractors, whether or not they are required to do so, because they will experience a net decrease in costs over the life of the equipment, Sisson said. For example, port equipment manufacturer Kalmar has stated that electric top picks may also be available in the near future. Sisson said he believes that the ports’ estimate of $14 billion in costs associated with the CAAP is much too high given the rapid advances being made in battery technology and related areas. Battery technology for automobiles is quickly becoming a passion for manufacturers such as Tesla, Volvo, Ford, and General Motors. The Southern California ports are working with manufacturers to test zero-emission trucks in the rigorous drayage environment. According to the CAAP, there will be 70 zero-emission trucks operating in the port region by the end of 2019. Nevertheless, drayage companies continue to be scared by the 2035 target date in the CAAP for 100 percent zero emission drayage trucks. Cameron said that as with cargo-handling equipment, the date is a guideline, and even if zero-emission trucks become commercially available before then, drayage companies that meet phased-in guidelines in the CAAP that will take effect over the next 10 years will be allowed to continue operating those trucks for the rest of their useful lives. The original clean-truck program in the CAAP demonstrated just how quickly a fleet can be replaced with the proper incentives and financial support from the ports and regulatory agencies. The phase-out deadlines in the clean-truck program began in 2008, and by 2010 about 90 percent of the 17,000-truck fleet in Los Angeles-Long Beach was compliant in operating 2007 or newer model vehicles. By Jan. 1, 2012, the entire fleet was compliant. The Los Angeles-Long Beach clean-truck program has been emulated to various degrees by the Northwest Seaport Alliance of Seattle and Tacoma, Oakland, and New York-New Jersey. The Coalition for Responsible Transportation has taken the clean-truck initiative nationwide, with ports, motor carriers, and BCOs coming together voluntarily to phase out old, dirty trucks from harbor service. Cameron said Los Angeles and Long Beach have shared their best practices with other ports that have requested a dialogue in pollution-reduction methods that are of particular interest in their region. He said he expects that as advances are made in zero-emission cargo-handling equipment, other ports will turn to Los Angeles and Long Beach for advice on best practices. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @billmongelluzzo .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Drayage

Marine terminals

North American ports

LA-LB clean-air rules set to become US port industry norm

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While Gemini Cooperation continues to top the industry’s schedule reliability, even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors last month, notably severe weather in the North Atlantic.</div>

While Gemini Cooperation continues to top the industry’s schedule reliability, even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors last month, notably severe weather in the North Atlantic.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Schedule reliability among ocean carriers fell sharply in the first month of the year as long wait times and congestion at Asian hubs combined with widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic to place intense strain on liner networks. The latest schedule reliability data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd continues to lead the industry’s on-time performance, and by some measure, but even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors. “All networks with the exception of non-alliance services declined at the outset of 2026, highlighting the operational headwinds we can expect to face in Q1 and Q2,” Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at Xeneta, wrote in an update accompanying the data. “Ocean Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and even Gemini all took considerable hits to their performance this past month, from five to seven percentage points of decline,” she added. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="34e4b5a5-cecc-482c-a37d-4885fe5a1a41"></dynamic-object></div>Gemini reported a 68% on-time performance in January, down from 75% in December. Ocean Alliance fell from 28% in December to 23% in January, MSC’s reliability dropped from 26% to 19%, and Premier Alliance only managed a 12% on-time performance, down from 21% in December. Non-alliance carriers reported a four percentage point drop to 28% schedule reliability. Ozuygur said while volatile reliability patterns were “fairly expected” for MSC, seeing Gemini lose some foothold lent a different weight to the severity of the localized issues. ”The dual pressure of prolonged wait times and congestion at Asian hubs throughout January, as well as widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic Ocean, created operational strain for the most resilient network,” she wrote. Ozuygur said while <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lofty-reliability-goals-for-gemini-alliance-hang-on-key-service-assumptions-5214653">Gemini’s promise of a 90% on-time arrival rate</a> across all corridors “has proven idealistic in this environment,” the hub-and-spoke strategy employed by partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has been resilient. She pointed to Gemini’s blanking of an absolute minimum of sailings. Just 18 blank sailings were announced by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in 2025, including only two on Asia-North America and nine on Asia-Europe that were exclusive to Chinese Golden Week. For comparison, Premier Alliance announced 84 blanks on Asia-North America and 181 globally. Xeneta’s global schedule reliability data showed a continuing decline through January, with only 29% of arrivals ticking the on-time box, down from 32% in December and a departure from the 34% to 37% monthly on-time arrivals seen in the second and third quarters of 2025. Compounding the decline in arrivals was the magnitude of delays at berth, which rose from 3.7 days in December to 4.2 days in January. <h3>Winter storms, congestion hammer schedules </h3>On a trade level, the trans-Atlantic westbound corridor from Europe to North America showed on-time arrivals down 10 percentage points in January at 32%, with Asia-North America down eight percentage points to 29%. Much of the latest troubles on the trans-Atlantic can be attributed to severe weather. A series of extreme winter storms have hammered Europe this year, bringing huge swells and gale force winds to the Western Mediterranean and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/severe-winter-storm-disrupts-north-europe-port-inland-operations-6148334">freezing temperatures that hampered terminal and yard operations</a> in North Europe ports. The disruption to services as ships were forced to wait out the storms created week-long delays on multiple vessels across 16 services calling at ports along the East Coast of North America. The trans-Pacific trade is currently seeing its worst reliability since January last year, equalling the 29% on-time performance reported a year ago. Ozuygur said although the drivers this year were less dependent on dramatic network overhauls, they were comparable in operational impact. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="c0cf790c-877b-46ec-8a01-15b3418a614a"></dynamic-object></div>“Paired with the seasonal spike in cancellation rates in February and March totaling 687,000 TEUs and 93 cancelled sailings, these delays indicate a rough start to 2026 for US shippers,” she said, adding that it was something shippers would be watching carefully over the next month. "With tender season practically upon us, this is a crucial window for shippers and forwarders to reexamine performance at a carrier level,” Ozuygur said. “Careful consideration of carrier-level performance balanced across transit times, on-time arrivals and cancellation rates should be incorporated before firming contracts.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-inks-order-for-six-dual-fuel-lng-ships-with-india-yard-6172333">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Schedule reliability among ocean carriers fell sharply in the first month of the year as long wait times and congestion at Asian hubs combined with widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic to place intense strain on liner networks. The latest schedule reliability data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows the Gemini Cooperation alliance of Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd continues to lead the industry’s on-time performance, and by some measure, but even its resilient network was not immune to deteriorating operational factors. “All networks with the exception of non-alliance services declined at the outset of 2026, highlighting the operational headwinds we can expect to face in Q1 and Q2,” Destine Ozuygur, senior market analyst at Xeneta, wrote in an update accompanying the data. “Ocean Alliance, Mediterranean Shipping Co. and even Gemini all took considerable hits to their performance this past month, from five to seven percentage points of decline,” she added. Gemini reported a 68% on-time performance in January, down from 75% in December. Ocean Alliance fell from 28% in December to 23% in January, MSC’s reliability dropped from 26% to 19%, and Premier Alliance only managed a 12% on-time performance, down from 21% in December. Non-alliance carriers reported a four percentage point drop to 28% schedule reliability. Ozuygur said while volatile reliability patterns were “fairly expected” for MSC, seeing Gemini lose some foothold lent a different weight to the severity of the localized issues. ”The dual pressure of prolonged wait times and congestion at Asian hubs throughout January, as well as widespread weather disruptions in the North Atlantic Ocean, created operational strain for the most resilient network,” she wrote. Ozuygur said while Gemini’s promise of a 90% on-time arrival rate across all corridors “has proven idealistic in this environment,” the hub-and-spoke strategy employed by partners Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd has been resilient. She pointed to Gemini’s blanking of an absolute minimum of sailings. Just 18 blank sailings were announced by Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd in 2025, including only two on Asia-North America and nine on Asia-Europe that were exclusive to Chinese Golden Week. For comparison, Premier Alliance announced 84 blanks on Asia-North America and 181 globally. Xeneta’s global schedule reliability data showed a continuing decline through January, with only 29% of arrivals ticking the on-time box, down from 32% in December and a departure from the 34% to 37% monthly on-time arrivals seen in the second and third quarters of 2025. Compounding the decline in arrivals was the magnitude of delays at berth, which rose from 3.7 days in December to 4.2 days in January. Winter storms, congestion hammer schedules On a trade level, the trans-Atlantic westbound corridor from Europe to North America showed on-time arrivals down 10 percentage points in January at 32%, with Asia-North America down eight percentage points to 29%. Much of the latest troubles on the trans-Atlantic can be attributed to severe weather. A series of extreme winter storms have hammered Europe this year, bringing huge swells and gale force winds to the Western Mediterranean and freezing temperatures that hampered terminal and yard operations in North Europe ports. The disruption to services as ships were forced to wait out the storms created week-long delays on multiple vessels across 16 services calling at ports along the East Coast of North America. The trans-Pacific trade is currently seeing its worst reliability since January last year, equalling the 29% on-time performance reported a year ago. Ozuygur said although the drivers this year were less dependent on dramatic network overhauls, they were comparable in operational impact. “Paired with the seasonal spike in cancellation rates in February and March totaling 687,000 TEUs and 93 cancelled sailings, these delays indicate a rough start to 2026 for US shippers,” she said, adding that it was something shippers would be watching carefully over the next month. "With tender season practically upon us, this is a crucial window for shippers and forwarders to reexamine performance at a carrier level,” Ozuygur said. “Careful consideration of carrier-level performance balanced across transit times, on-time arrivals and cancellation rates should be incorporated before firming contracts.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Ocean carrier on-time arrivals tumbled in January: Xeneta

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.</div>

The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to declare as illegal the global tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1287_4gcj.pdf">did not have the authority</a> under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, though most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper <a href="https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2026/02/who-is-paying-for-the-2025-u-s-tariffs/">published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve</a> found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. <h3>What’s next? </h3>The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. <h3>Other tariff mechanisms available </h3>In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include so-called Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared to other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com.</a></div>

The US Supreme Court on Friday ruled that President Donald Trump did not have the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to implement his wide-ranging global tariffs against US trading partners. The 6-3 decision by the nation’s highest court to essentially declare as illegal the tariffs implemented by the US since last April’s so-called “Liberation Day” is likely to throw the Trump administration’s tariff policy into disarray. The ruling could potentially unlock US-bound ocean freight volumes that have been bogged down since the end of the 2025 peak season due to economic uncertainty and worries that tariff costs couldn’t be effectively passed on to consumers. IEEPA-based tariffs vary between 10% and 50%, depending on the country, though most were 15% or lower. Numerous importers have decried the cost of paying tariffs as a material drag on their businesses over the past year, either due to the impact of price increases or profit margin pressure. Companies have also had to undertake nearly constant scenario planning to account for rapid changes to tariff exposure and subsequent sourcing location changes. A paper published earlier this month by the New York Federal Reserve found that 90% of the added costs of Trump’s tariffs were being passed on to consumers and businesses. What’s next? The Supreme Court ruling is likely to lead to a chain reaction of legislation and administrative actions involving the Trump administration, US Customs and Border Protection, US importers, and trade consultants and attorneys representing those importers. CBP will have to refund importers hundreds of billions of dollars of tariffs paid over the course of the last nine months, though the Supreme Court’s decision Friday did not specify how that process should take place. Pete Mento, director of global trade advisory services at accounting firm Baker Tilly, told the Journal of Commerce that the Court of International Trade will decide how the refund process will unfold, a decision he said will likely come quickly. In early January, CBP shared a new electronic refund process that trade experts saw as a foreshadowing of Friday’s decision. “The court said tariffs are taxes, taxes belong to Congress, and ‘regulating importation’ in a sanctions statue does not secretly mean ‘rewrite the HTS because the trade deficit hurt your feelings,’” Mento wrote in a LinkedIn post Friday. Other tariff mechanisms available In the meantime, the administration has previously signaled its intent to implement tariffs through other legislative mechanisms if the Court struck down its IEEPA tariffs. Levers that are available to the Trump administration include so-called Section 122, a provision that allows the executive branch to assess tariffs on countries to address a “large and serious” balance-of-payments deficit through import surcharges of up to 15%, import quotas, or a combination of the two, according to a December blog from the American Enterprise Institute. The catch with actions under Section 122 is that while they don’t require Congressional approval, they expire after 150 days. The president could, theoretically, extend them for another 150 days, but that action would be seen to contravene the spirit of the section. Also notable is that Section 122 has never been used before specifically to impose trade restrictions. Another option is use of Section 338, a largely defunct provision that allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against US commerce compared to other nations, the AEI blog explained. Section 338 is largely thought to have been supplanted by Section 301, the unfair trading practices provision under which Trump instituted tariffs against China in his first term. Under 301, the US Trade Representative must conduct an investigation before deciding that tariffs are necessary. The administration could expand its use of Section 232 tariffs, also deployed widely in Trump’s first term, to target national security risks. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com.

Port News

Supply chain

US Supreme Court rules against Trump in critical IEEPA tariff case

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Dray Dog is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals.</div>

Dray Dog is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals.

<div class="phx-topic">CargoSprint, a payment technology provider that works with US container terminals, on Friday said it has acquired a Southern California-based software vendor that helps drayage companies coordinate appointments at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The acquired company, Dray Dog, is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals that require appointments to pick up or drop off containers. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. “Dray Dog has become a hidden gem for large dray carriers in San Pedro,” CargoSprint CEO Caro Krissman told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s their secret weapon and enables a material cost reduction (associated with planning and scheduling appointments).” The acquisition is CargoSprint’s first since <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-payment-provider-acquires-advent-emodal-5905331">buying Advent eModal in December 2024</a>, a deal that expanded CargoSprint’s scope as a predominantly air cargo-focused payment technology provider serving airport ground handlers into one serving marine terminal operators (MTOs) at the US’ largest port complexes. Krissman said Dray Dog fills a niche for dray carriers in Southern California by being “focused on a subset of problems for dray carriers, not the entire [transportation management system] stack.” The acquisition not only helps CargoSprint tie together appointment systems operated by its MTO customers with tools used by the dray carriers that interact with those MTOs, but it also helps CargoSprint invest in the driver experience, an area on which it had never previously focused. “We needed to invest in the carrier experience,” Krissman said. “Dray carriers don’t pay us; the terminal is our customer and carriers are our users. For a while, we thought Dray Dog was this big thorn in our side. But we realized how coveted this solution was to carriers.” <h3>System handles ‘double moves’ </h3>Krissman said Dray Dog has helped carriers in the region evolve from manually scouring disparate appointments systems across Los Angeles and Long Beach to being able to proactively orchestrate those appointments. “This system helps them with double moves and accounts for their preferred pickup times and preferences,” he said, referring to when a carrier drops off an empty container and picks up a loaded import box in the same turn. “Before Dray Dog, the carrier would do it themselves and it was brutal, then they would get to scale and get an (outsourced provider) to do it. Then Dray Dog came along and solved that problem.” CargoSprint provides the appointment scheduling platform for seven of the 11 terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach that require appointments. Matson, the 12th terminal in the port complex, doesn’t require appointments. Krissman added that CargoSprint is looking at other, potentially larger acquisition opportunities later in the year. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com.</a></div>

CargoSprint, a payment technology provider that works with US container terminals, on Friday said it has acquired a Southern California-based software vendor that helps drayage companies coordinate appointments at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The acquired company, Dray Dog, is predominantly used by large drayage carriers serving the Southern California ports and handles a significant portion of appointments made at the 11 Los Angeles and Long Beach marine terminals that require appointments to pick up or drop off containers. Terms of the acquisition were not disclosed. “Dray Dog has become a hidden gem for large dray carriers in San Pedro,” CargoSprint CEO Caro Krissman told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s their secret weapon and enables a material cost reduction (associated with planning and scheduling appointments).” The acquisition is CargoSprint’s first since buying Advent eModal in December 2024 , a deal that expanded CargoSprint’s scope as a predominantly air cargo-focused payment technology provider serving airport ground handlers into one serving marine terminal operators (MTOs) at the US’ largest port complexes. Krissman said Dray Dog fills a niche for dray carriers in Southern California by being “focused on a subset of problems for dray carriers, not the entire [transportation management system] stack.” The acquisition not only helps CargoSprint tie together appointment systems operated by its MTO customers with tools used by the dray carriers that interact with those MTOs, but it also helps CargoSprint invest in the driver experience, an area on which it had never previously focused. “We needed to invest in the carrier experience,” Krissman said. “Dray carriers don’t pay us; the terminal is our customer and carriers are our users. For a while, we thought Dray Dog was this big thorn in our side. But we realized how coveted this solution was to carriers.” System handles ‘double moves’ Krissman said Dray Dog has helped carriers in the region evolve from manually scouring disparate appointments systems across Los Angeles and Long Beach to being able to proactively orchestrate those appointments. “This system helps them with double moves and accounts for their preferred pickup times and preferences,” he said, referring to when a carrier drops off an empty container and picks up a loaded import box in the same turn. “Before Dray Dog, the carrier would do it themselves and it was brutal, then they would get to scale and get an (outsourced provider) to do it. Then Dray Dog came along and solved that problem.” CargoSprint provides the appointment scheduling platform for seven of the 11 terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach that require appointments. Matson, the 12th terminal in the port complex, doesn’t require appointments. Krissman added that CargoSprint is looking at other, potentially larger acquisition opportunities later in the year. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com.

CargoSprint acquires key appointment scheduling tool for LA-LB dray carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Asset-based carriers offer a layer of security for shippers concerned with the English language proficiency of drivers and non-domiciled CDL regulatory compliance, but it doesn’t eliminate the risk fully.</div>

Asset-based carriers offer a layer of security for shippers concerned with the English language proficiency of drivers and non-domiciled CDL regulatory compliance, but it doesn’t eliminate the risk fully.

<div class="phx-topic">US shippers negotiating truckload contracts in 2026 are weighing the implications of the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/usdot-releases-interim-final-rule-on-non-domiciled-cdl-holders-6169023">federal crackdown</a> on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and the English language proficiency of drivers, exploring how to best mitigate their exposure. Coupled with the rise in strategic cargo theft in recent years, risk mitigation is increasingly becoming part of contract negotiations between shippers and truckload carriers. As a hedge, some shippers have chosen to use fewer non-asset brokers and tender more freight to asset-owning carriers, according to comments by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings on its fourth-quarter earnings call last month. But not every shipper views the risk-generating issues as urgent. Companies shipping big, bulky freight and carrying ample safety stock tend to express less concern than those moving electronics, food and beverage, and other just-in-time freight that must be delivered on time and in full. Marc Blubaugh, an attorney with transportation law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Colan &amp; Aronoff, said his clients fall into two categories: shippers who engage in conversations with their carriers and shippers who want to write language into their contracts. “There’s an over-drafting camp that says, ‘Hey, we’re going to specifically call out these two issues and maybe some others in our compliance section of the contract,’” Blubaugh told the Journal of Commerce. “There’s another camp that does not believe additional language is necessary, only a conversation, because brokers and carriers already agree to comply with all US laws and regulations in the standard contract.” At the center of the debate is a structural question: How much incremental risk exists when a third-party carrier hauls a load compared with a company driver employed by large truckload carriers such as Knight-Swift, Schneider National and Werner Enterprises? Some shippers argue the risk gap is wider today than it was five years ago, before strategic cargo theft and regulatory scrutiny of non-domiciled CDLs and English proficiency moved to the forefront. <h3>Asset-based carriers have their own exposure, too </h3>The conversation is complicated by the fact that most large asset-based carriers operate “hybrid” models. Company drivers haul some freight, while other loads may be brokered to third parties through “power-only” arrangements. Power-only models offer operational benefits. They allow drop-and-hook operations in which third-party drivers can grab the larger carrier trailer and immediately get back on the road. They also provide flexible capacity during cargo surges, preventing freight from sitting on docks or forcing shippers to pay to reposition company drivers from other markets. Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said the company employs extensive vetting for third-party carriers who haul their company-branded trailers. “We have probably the most robust security team, an industry-leading security team vetting our third-party carriers,” Miller said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. “We vet to the greatest ability on who is going to be hauling that load. We do things internally to reduce that risk, but we can’t necessarily eliminate it.” That acknowledgment underscores the operational distinction. Asset-based carriers directly hire, vet, and oversee their company drivers. When freight moves to a third party, the carrier may vet against the contracted motor carrier, but not necessarily the individual driver behind the wheel. A logistics executive at another large carrier who did not want to be identified said brand exposure creates a different incentive structure. When a company’s name is emblazoned on the trailer, the reputational consequences of a serious roadside incident are immediate and visible, creating strong motivation to scrutinize third-party capacity. Craig Ingram, owner of Asset-Based Intermodal in Dallas, said the issue is not whether vetting occurs, but what level of vetting occurs. He described a case in which freight he previously hauled was shifted to a lower-cost carrier operating under an agency structure. Ingram said some of the Somali drivers involved had previously worked for him and that he terminated them after discovering they weren’t “legal citizens.” “Are they vetting the driver showing up, or are they vetting the agent who gives it to the driver, that’s the key question,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Ingram argues that when freight is routed through layered structures, safety ratings and insurance may be assessed at the entity level, potentially obscuring who is behind the wheel. <h3>What can a shipper do </h3>Executives across the trucking and logistics spectrum encourage shippers to ask detailed questions about how carriers and brokers vet third-party capacity. Werner Enterprises, for example, uses multi-factor authentication through an app called Okta Verify before releasing load details to third parties. Such measures are primarily designed to address cargo theft rather than regulatory compliance issues tied to non-domiciled CDLs or English language proficiency. A shipper who did not want to be identified said peers should memorialize expectations in service level agreements (SLAs) or standard operating procedures. “If you want to move loads with only company drivers, you should have structures that require the carrier to report when they’re using third parties, and clearly define your expectations,” the shipper told the Journal of Commerce. “The SLA is basically saying the carrier will perform to this level, this way, or else. The ‘or else’ might be penalties or reminding the carrier your commitment to the carrier is not guaranteed; that I won’t continue to honor my minimum quantity commitments.” Miller said Knight-Swift can accommodate shipper preferences, but cautioned that restricting freight to company drivers comes with operational and cost implications. “If a customer says, ‘I want you to only use company drivers,’ we can do that,” he said. But doing so may mean a load sits on the dock longer or requires repositioning a company driver from another market, something charged as an accessorial fee. The risk calculus, trucking executives say, ultimately depends on cargo sensitivity, tolerance for disruption, and how much flexibility and cost the shipper would be willing to trade for control. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US shippers negotiating truckload contracts in 2026 are weighing the implications of the federal crackdown on non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) and the English language proficiency of drivers, exploring how to best mitigate their exposure. Coupled with the rise in strategic cargo theft in recent years, risk mitigation is increasingly becoming part of contract negotiations between shippers and truckload carriers. As a hedge, some shippers have chosen to use fewer non-asset brokers and tender more freight to asset-owning carriers, according to comments by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings on its fourth-quarter earnings call last month. But not every shipper views the risk-generating issues as urgent. Companies shipping big, bulky freight and carrying ample safety stock tend to express less concern than those moving electronics, food and beverage, and other just-in-time freight that must be delivered on time and in full. Marc Blubaugh, an attorney with transportation law firm Benesch, Friedlander, Colan & Aronoff, said his clients fall into two categories: shippers who engage in conversations with their carriers and shippers who want to write language into their contracts. “There’s an over-drafting camp that says, ‘Hey, we’re going to specifically call out these two issues and maybe some others in our compliance section of the contract,’” Blubaugh told the Journal of Commerce. “There’s another camp that does not believe additional language is necessary, only a conversation, because brokers and carriers already agree to comply with all US laws and regulations in the standard contract.” At the center of the debate is a structural question: How much incremental risk exists when a third-party carrier hauls a load compared with a company driver employed by large truckload carriers such as Knight-Swift, Schneider National and Werner Enterprises? Some shippers argue the risk gap is wider today than it was five years ago, before strategic cargo theft and regulatory scrutiny of non-domiciled CDLs and English proficiency moved to the forefront. Asset-based carriers have their own exposure, too The conversation is complicated by the fact that most large asset-based carriers operate “hybrid” models. Company drivers haul some freight, while other loads may be brokered to third parties through “power-only” arrangements. Power-only models offer operational benefits. They allow drop-and-hook operations in which third-party drivers can grab the larger carrier trailer and immediately get back on the road. They also provide flexible capacity during cargo surges, preventing freight from sitting on docks or forcing shippers to pay to reposition company drivers from other markets. Knight-Swift CEO Adam Miller said the company employs extensive vetting for third-party carriers who haul their company-branded trailers. “We have probably the most robust security team, an industry-leading security team vetting our third-party carriers,” Miller said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. “We vet to the greatest ability on who is going to be hauling that load. We do things internally to reduce that risk, but we can’t necessarily eliminate it.” That acknowledgment underscores the operational distinction. Asset-based carriers directly hire, vet, and oversee their company drivers. When freight moves to a third party, the carrier may vet against the contracted motor carrier, but not necessarily the individual driver behind the wheel. A logistics executive at another large carrier who did not want to be identified said brand exposure creates a different incentive structure. When a company’s name is emblazoned on the trailer, the reputational consequences of a serious roadside incident are immediate and visible, creating strong motivation to scrutinize third-party capacity. Craig Ingram, owner of Asset-Based Intermodal in Dallas, said the issue is not whether vetting occurs, but what level of vetting occurs. He described a case in which freight he previously hauled was shifted to a lower-cost carrier operating under an agency structure. Ingram said some of the Somali drivers involved had previously worked for him and that he terminated them after discovering they weren’t “legal citizens.” “Are they vetting the driver showing up, or are they vetting the agent who gives it to the driver, that’s the key question,” he told the Journal of Commerce. Ingram argues that when freight is routed through layered structures, safety ratings and insurance may be assessed at the entity level, potentially obscuring who is behind the wheel. What can a shipper do Executives across the trucking and logistics spectrum encourage shippers to ask detailed questions about how carriers and brokers vet third-party capacity. Werner Enterprises, for example, uses multi-factor authentication through an app called Okta Verify before releasing load details to third parties. Such measures are primarily designed to address cargo theft rather than regulatory compliance issues tied to non-domiciled CDLs or English language proficiency. A shipper who did not want to be identified said peers should memorialize expectations in service level agreements (SLAs) or standard operating procedures. “If you want to move loads with only company drivers, you should have structures that require the carrier to report when they’re using third parties, and clearly define your expectations,” the shipper told the Journal of Commerce. “The SLA is basically saying the carrier will perform to this level, this way, or else. The ‘or else’ might be penalties or reminding the carrier your commitment to the carrier is not guaranteed; that I won’t continue to honor my minimum quantity commitments.” Miller said Knight-Swift can accommodate shipper preferences, but cautioned that restricting freight to company drivers comes with operational and cost implications. “If a customer says, ‘I want you to only use company drivers,’ we can do that,” he said. But doing so may mean a load sits on the dock longer or requires repositioning a company driver from another market, something charged as an accessorial fee. The risk calculus, trucking executives say, ultimately depends on cargo sensitivity, tolerance for disruption, and how much flexibility and cost the shipper would be willing to trade for control. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Trucking labor

Surface

Truckload shippers look to minimize growing regulatory risks

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier has finalized plans to inject significant incremental westbound capacity into the market on its “MECL” service, multiple industry sources told the Journal of Commerce. </div>

The carrier has finalized plans to inject significant incremental westbound capacity into the market on its “MECL” service, multiple industry sources told the Journal of Commerce.

<div class="phx-topic">More container capacity is poised to enter the India-US trade lane as carrier executives spot measurable green shoots of volume after the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-agrees-to-slash-tariffs-on-imports-from-india-after-reaching-trade-deal-6162939">recent reset of US tariffs on Indian-made goods</a>. Maersk has finalized plans to inject significant incremental westbound capacity into the market through vessel upsizing on its West India-US East Coast (USEC) “MECL” service, multiple industry sources told the Journal of Commerce. That comes as the US has lowered its tariff on Indian goods from 50% to 25%, with a further cut to 18% expected soon. Sources also confirmed that Maersk’s loading space for the Indian region will climb sequentially by up to 3,000 TEUs per week through the year, beginning with an extra 750 TEUS to 800 TEUs of capacity joining the MECL service in the second quarter that typically aligns with the onset of new service contract shipments. The weekly MECL service currently deploys ships with capacities ranging between 6,000 TEUS and 8,000 TEUs, available data shows. A Maersk executive declined to confirm specifics of the carrier’s planned capacity boost on the India-US trade but acknowledged cargo flows would increase on the lane soon. “Based on our read of the market, we expect meaningful new cargo flows to begin materializing from April onwards, as buyers and sellers lock in commitments and production cycles align,” Bhavik Mota, Maersk’s director of regional ocean management for India/Middle East/Africa (IMEA), told the Journal of Commerce. “We will then recalibrate our capacity for India-US trade based on customer requirements.” Bhavik also said while exporters across the sectors remain bullish about the demand outlook ahead, tariff realignments and new procurement cycles take time to filter through before containers begin moving. “This [tariff] reduction meaningfully improves the economics of doing business across this [India-US] lane, and that sentiment is clearly reflected in the conversations we are having with shippers,” he added. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ae1df54b-4003-46b5-a8c3-e0d35707e941"></dynamic-object></div>There were some positive signs even before the trade deal between Washington and New Delhi was announced in early February. Exports from India to the US East Coast climbed 20% to 76,550 TEUs in January from December, the first month-over-month increase since last August, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <h3>Spot rates on steady decline </h3>With the late-January <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersk-set-to-resume-regular-suez-transits-on-india-usec-mecl-loop-sources-6152441">reinstatement of regular Red Sea/Suez Canal transits westbound</a>, the MECL now boasts a 25-day transit from Nhava Sheva to Newark, NJ, currently the fastest connection on offer for Indian loads to the US East Coast. Maersk wants to reclaim India-USEC market share lost to rivals over the past decade, so capacity expansions now at play build on service upgrades it implemented last year, including the addition of Mundra as a third Indian port of call to enhance export allocations and the removal of Algeciras in Spain to shorten the roundtrip duration. Spot rate indicators and capacity utilization data, however, suggest carriers are struggling thus far to tilt the market back to their side. Booking rates from India to the USEC have almost halved since the 50% tariff blow, down to $1,173 per FEU as of Feb. 18 from $2,200 on Aug. 29, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="893ffa5c-0a69-45c7-a555-425e44318711"></dynamic-object></div>Additionally, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, monthly average proforma capacity across seven services on the India-US trade lane between August 2025 and January 2026 was approximately 160,000 TEUs, whereas the nominal monthly average of capacity actually deployed by carriers over the period stood at 127,000 TEUs, blanking approximately 21% of scheduled space. And sources warn any large capacity influx could also weigh on carrier contract rate negotiations if there is no matching acceleration in demand. Meanwhile, Maersk on Wednesday announced a hefty peak season surcharge of $3,000 per container for loads from the Indian subcontinent/Middle East to the US East/Gulf coasts from March 20. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

More container capacity is poised to enter the India-US trade lane as carrier executives spot measurable green shoots of volume after the recent reset of US tariffs on Indian-made goods . Maersk has finalized plans to inject significant incremental westbound capacity into the market through vessel upsizing on its West India-US East Coast (USEC) “MECL” service, multiple industry sources told the Journal of Commerce. That comes as the US has lowered its tariff on Indian goods from 50% to 25%, with a further cut to 18% expected soon. Sources also confirmed that Maersk’s loading space for the Indian region will climb sequentially by up to 3,000 TEUs per week through the year, beginning with an extra 750 TEUS to 800 TEUs of capacity joining the MECL service in the second quarter that typically aligns with the onset of new service contract shipments. The weekly MECL service currently deploys ships with capacities ranging between 6,000 TEUS and 8,000 TEUs, available data shows. A Maersk executive declined to confirm specifics of the carrier’s planned capacity boost on the India-US trade but acknowledged cargo flows would increase on the lane soon. “Based on our read of the market, we expect meaningful new cargo flows to begin materializing from April onwards, as buyers and sellers lock in commitments and production cycles align,” Bhavik Mota, Maersk’s director of regional ocean management for India/Middle East/Africa (IMEA), told the Journal of Commerce. “We will then recalibrate our capacity for India-US trade based on customer requirements.” Bhavik also said while exporters across the sectors remain bullish about the demand outlook ahead, tariff realignments and new procurement cycles take time to filter through before containers begin moving. “This [tariff] reduction meaningfully improves the economics of doing business across this [India-US] lane, and that sentiment is clearly reflected in the conversations we are having with shippers,” he added. There were some positive signs even before the trade deal between Washington and New Delhi was announced in early February. Exports from India to the US East Coast climbed 20% to 76,550 TEUs in January from December, the first month-over-month increase since last August, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Spot rates on steady decline With the late-January reinstatement of regular Red Sea/Suez Canal transits westbound , the MECL now boasts a 25-day transit from Nhava Sheva to Newark, NJ, currently the fastest connection on offer for Indian loads to the US East Coast. Maersk wants to reclaim India-USEC market share lost to rivals over the past decade, so capacity expansions now at play build on service upgrades it implemented last year, including the addition of Mundra as a third Indian port of call to enhance export allocations and the removal of Algeciras in Spain to shorten the roundtrip duration. Spot rate indicators and capacity utilization data, however, suggest carriers are struggling thus far to tilt the market back to their side. Booking rates from India to the USEC have almost halved since the 50% tariff blow, down to $1,173 per FEU as of Feb. 18 from $2,200 on Aug. 29, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Additionally, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, monthly average proforma capacity across seven services on the India-US trade lane between August 2025 and January 2026 was approximately 160,000 TEUs, whereas the nominal monthly average of capacity actually deployed by carriers over the period stood at 127,000 TEUs, blanking approximately 21% of scheduled space. And sources warn any large capacity influx could also weigh on carrier contract rate negotiations if there is no matching acceleration in demand. Meanwhile, Maersk on Wednesday announced a hefty peak season surcharge of $3,000 per container for loads from the Indian subcontinent/Middle East to the US East/Gulf coasts from March 20. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Maersk to upsize India-USEC capacity to tap post-trade deal cargo growth  

Use code GTW595 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 FTW25 at checkout to save 25% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%

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

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code GW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE 25%: Use code FTW25 to save 25% 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

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTW595 at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade 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

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 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 premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk 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

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

Ocean carrier on-time arrivals tumbled in January: Xeneta

US Supreme Court rules against Trump in critical IEEPA tariff case

CargoSprint acquires key appointment scheduling tool for LA-LB dray carriers