<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Q: I have a QUESTION pertaining to the non-recourse clause on bills of lading.
 
 </div>

Q: I have a QUESTION pertaining to the non-recourse clause on bills of lading.

<div>Q: I have a QUESTION pertaining to the non-recourse clause on bills of lading. Unfortunately, we had a customer who said to send his shipments collect but then filed for bankruptcy. Because the customer did not pay the freight bills, the carrier came to us seeking payment because we did not sign Section 7, dealing with responsibility for charges.We are thinking about signing this section of the bill of lading for future shipments. From my understanding, if we sign this section, we would not be responsible for freight charges if a customer does not pay. But we&amp;rsquo;re unsure what happens...

Q: I have a QUESTION pertaining to the non-recourse clause on bills of lading. Unfortunately, we had a customer who said to send his shipments collect but then filed for bankruptcy. Because the customer did not pay the freight bills, the carrier came to us seeking payment because we did not sign Section 7, dealing with responsibility for charges. We are thinking about signing this section of the bill of lading for future shipments. From my understanding, if we sign this section, we would not be responsible for freight charges if a customer does not pay. But we&rsquo;re unsure what happens on the consignee&rsquo;s end. Are shipments treated as c.o.d., or are they held until the carrier receives payment? A: An excellent question, which warrants some exploration. Strictly speaking, you&rsquo;re correct that collect shipments moving with Section 7 executed may be held until the consignee pays the carrier. In fact, by signing Section 7, that&rsquo;s exactly what you&rsquo;re telling the carrier to do. Different B/L forms use different phrasing, but the generic version goes something like this: &ldquo;The carrier shall not make delivery of this shipment without payment of freight and all other lawful charges.&rdquo; This direction is what protects you, the shipper, from being yourself liable for the freight charges if the consignee doesn&rsquo;t pay, because it&rsquo;s an integral part of the contract between you and the carrier. Let&rsquo;s say the carrier delivers without collecting up front, planning to bill later. That&rsquo;s the usual circumstance, by the way; carriers mostly disregard the explicit language of Section 7. But in doing that, the carrier has technically violated the B/L contract when Section 7 is executed. And this violation precludes it from seeking later to penalize the shipper &mdash; by demanding that it pay freight charges when the consignee doesn&rsquo;t &mdash; for its own failure to observe the contract terms. Keep in mind this is entirely different from c.o.d. terms. Under those, the consignee is obliged to pony up for the shipper&rsquo;s (vendor&rsquo;s) invoice for the goods themselves before delivery is made. Carriers take this very seriously, because it imposes on them a fiduciary responsibility for the invoice value. If they deliver a c.o.d. shipment without collecting for the invoice, they are held liable for the uncollected money. Section 7 says nothing about the shipper&rsquo;s invoice, and places the carrier under no obligation to collect it. It merely advises the carrier to get its own freight charges at the time of delivery; it leaves the shipper and receiver to set up their own payment arrangements between themselves. But by executing Section 7, you&rsquo;ve given it the right to require pre-delivery payment by the consignee. And it&rsquo;s quite possible that, in the case you mention, the carriers might have done so, or at least some of them. You say your consignee went bankrupt, apparently fairly shortly after the deliveries were made. Bankruptcies usually don&rsquo;t come as any great surprise to the astute observer. There are ordinarily lots of early warning signals reflected in the company&rsquo;s credit rating. Especially these days, carriers are growing more cautious about extending credit. They frequently require credit applications, run the normal checks on creditworthiness, and so on. Now, the carriers quite likely wouldn&rsquo;t have troubled with such action on the shipments as you dispatched them, with Section 7 unsigned. They&rsquo;d have recognized that, in the event the consignee didn&rsquo;t pay, they had recourse against you. But had you deprived them of this option by executing Section 7, at least some might have been more circumspect. To protect themselves, they might have demanded timely payment by the consignee when it didn&rsquo;t, as one might expect, pass muster for extension of credit. So this possible inconvenience to your customers is the price you&rsquo;ll pay for executing Section 7 on future shipments. Personally, I think it&rsquo;s a price worth paying in most cases; even if you yourself are willing to give credit to your customers, at least it protects you against insult added to injury to not only having your own invoice unpaid but being obliged to pay shipment costs, too. Of course, it&rsquo;s to you, but I&rsquo;d consider it carefully. Consultant, author and educator Colin Barrett is president of Barrett Transportation Consultants. Send your questions to him at 5201 Whippoorwill Lane, Johns Island, S.C. 29455; phone 843-559-1277, e-mail BarrettTrn@aol.com . Contact him to order the 536-page compiled edition of past Q&A columns, published in 2001, at $80 plus shipping.

Bills of Lading and Section 7

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The infrastructure fund that owns the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal is not looking to divest as it seeks to extend the term of its lease, according to people familiar with the talks.</div>

The infrastructure fund that owns the Port of New York and New Jersey’s largest marine terminal is not looking to divest as it seeks to extend the term of its lease, according to people familiar with the talks.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Infrastructure investor Macquarie is looking to keep its majority stake in one of largest marine terminals on the US East Coast despite rumors of a sale that would coincide with a new lease at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Macquarie, though, faces millions in new costs under a new lease as the port seeks to offload wharf and berth maintenance onto its tenants. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/deutsche-bank-to-sell-maher-terminals-at-port-of-ny-nj-5230328">which bought New Jersey’s Maher Terminals in 2016 through its MIP III fund</a>, is negotiating with the Port Authority of the New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a new lease, according to people familiar with the talks. Japanese shipping line NYK acquired a 20% stake in Maher from MIP III shortly after the initial acquisition, leaving Macquarie with a majority 80% stake. Macquarie’s current lease for Maher doesn’t expire until 2030. But talks on a renewal started earlier this year under the expectation that MIP III would have to sell Maher as part of a capital return to its investors after the fund’s initial 10-year time horizon, sources said. Nailing down a new lease, which could be up to 30 years, was considered necessary before a potential buyer would consider acquiring a long-term asset such as the marine terminal, they added. In 2023, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ssa-marine-looks-to-expand-into-new-us-ports-with-deal-for-ceres-5221078">MIP III sold one of its portfolio companies</a>, Ceres Terminals, to Carrix, which is the parent company of terminal operator SSA Marine and has financial backing from the infrastructure fund of private equity investor Blackstone. However, investors in MIP III, which is a 2013 vintage fund, have agreed to extend the fund’s time horizon for another 10 years, according to a person familiar with the fund’s operations. MIP III’s extended time horizon means there are no plans — at least in the near term — for a sale of Maher, the source said. MIP III’s extension also delays an informal deadline of mid-2025 that the PANYNJ sought for lease negotiations, although a lease extension is likely to be agreed on later this year. Macquarie and the PANYNJ declined to comment on lease negotiations. <h3>Rising maintenance costs </h3>Since the purchase of Maher, Macquarie has doubled down on US terminal assets, particularly on the US West Coast. In 2019, it bought the Long Beach Container Terminal from OOCL for $1.78 billion and a year later acquired Long Beach’s ITS terminal for an undisclosed sum. In 2023, it purchased significant ownership stakes in TraPac’s Los Angeles and Oakland terminals and in Yusen Terminals. At 450 acres and almost 2 million container lifts per year, Maher is Macquarie’s largest single terminal asset and the largest privately operated terminal on the US East Coast. Maher has served as the primary East Coast hub for carriers in the Ocean Alliance. One of those carriers, CMA CGM, has moved more of its vessel calls to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-adds-terminal-assets-in-new-yorknew-jersey-5217593">the two NY-NJ marine terminals that it bought in 2022</a>. However, CMA CGM’s terminals do not have the capacity to also handle other Ocean Alliance carriers, including Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine. CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal will have more space once a throughput agreement with carriers in the Premier Alliance expires in 2027. Even then, Maher would need to handle some Ocean Alliance vessels, people familiar with the matter say. In addition to Ocean Alliance, Maher handles independent services from Zim and other carriers. It also serves as swing capacity for Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-cranes-put-ny-nj-port-on-track-to-handle-more-ultra-large-ships-by-2025-5226275">amid ongoing capital projects at the two terminals that serve those carriers</a>. Maher’s talks with the PANYNJ come amid the bi-state agency’s focus on shifting costs for maintaining the port’s wharves and berths to terminal operators. While marine terminals have typically only been responsible for everything from the ground up, CMA CGM and APM Terminals, which signed a new lease in March, agreed to terms requiring them to cover costs of wharf and berth maintenance. Damage from a worm called a marine borer has rendered some of the pylons supporting the NY-NJ piers down to the diameter of a “<a href="https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/transportation/2023/12/08/tiny-shipworms-ravaging-wood-pilings-of-nj-ny-wharves-port-authority-newark-bay/71813583007/">toothpick</a>,” PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney told local press. The additional maintenance responsibility on the part of tenants is lengthening Maher’s lease talks due to the costs involved. Repairing damaged wharves and other maintenance could add $20 million to a terminal operator’s annual costs under a long-term lease. The alternative is spending up to $250 million to fully replace a damaged berth. With each terminal having three or four big-ship berths, a terminal operator could face up to $1 billion in replacement costs. Moreover, any berth replacement would reduce capacity at the port, requiring terminals to coordinate such projects as they occur. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Infrastructure investor Macquarie is looking to keep its majority stake in one of largest marine terminals on the US East Coast despite rumors of a sale that would coincide with a new lease at the Port of New York and New Jersey. Macquarie, though, faces millions in new costs under a new lease as the port seeks to offload wharf and berth maintenance onto its tenants. Macquarie Infrastructure Partners, which bought New Jersey’s Maher Terminals in 2016 through its MIP III fund , is negotiating with the Port Authority of the New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) for a new lease, according to people familiar with the talks. Japanese shipping line NYK acquired a 20% stake in Maher from MIP III shortly after the initial acquisition, leaving Macquarie with a majority 80% stake. Macquarie’s current lease for Maher doesn’t expire until 2030. But talks on a renewal started earlier this year under the expectation that MIP III would have to sell Maher as part of a capital return to its investors after the fund’s initial 10-year time horizon, sources said. Nailing down a new lease, which could be up to 30 years, was considered necessary before a potential buyer would consider acquiring a long-term asset such as the marine terminal, they added. In 2023, MIP III sold one of its portfolio companies , Ceres Terminals, to Carrix, which is the parent company of terminal operator SSA Marine and has financial backing from the infrastructure fund of private equity investor Blackstone. However, investors in MIP III, which is a 2013 vintage fund, have agreed to extend the fund’s time horizon for another 10 years, according to a person familiar with the fund’s operations. MIP III’s extended time horizon means there are no plans — at least in the near term — for a sale of Maher, the source said. MIP III’s extension also delays an informal deadline of mid-2025 that the PANYNJ sought for lease negotiations, although a lease extension is likely to be agreed on later this year. Macquarie and the PANYNJ declined to comment on lease negotiations. Rising maintenance costs Since the purchase of Maher, Macquarie has doubled down on US terminal assets, particularly on the US West Coast. In 2019, it bought the Long Beach Container Terminal from OOCL for $1.78 billion and a year later acquired Long Beach’s ITS terminal for an undisclosed sum. In 2023, it purchased significant ownership stakes in TraPac’s Los Angeles and Oakland terminals and in Yusen Terminals. At 450 acres and almost 2 million container lifts per year, Maher is Macquarie’s largest single terminal asset and the largest privately operated terminal on the US East Coast. Maher has served as the primary East Coast hub for carriers in the Ocean Alliance. One of those carriers, CMA CGM, has moved more of its vessel calls to the two NY-NJ marine terminals that it bought in 2022 . However, CMA CGM’s terminals do not have the capacity to also handle other Ocean Alliance carriers, including Cosco Shipping, OOCL and Evergreen Marine. CMA CGM’s New Jersey terminal will have more space once a throughput agreement with carriers in the Premier Alliance expires in 2027. Even then, Maher would need to handle some Ocean Alliance vessels, people familiar with the matter say. In addition to Ocean Alliance, Maher handles independent services from Zim and other carriers. It also serves as swing capacity for Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. amid ongoing capital projects at the two terminals that serve those carriers . Maher’s talks with the PANYNJ come amid the bi-state agency’s focus on shifting costs for maintaining the port’s wharves and berths to terminal operators. While marine terminals have typically only been responsible for everything from the ground up, CMA CGM and APM Terminals, which signed a new lease in March, agreed to terms requiring them to cover costs of wharf and berth maintenance. Damage from a worm called a marine borer has rendered some of the pylons supporting the NY-NJ piers down to the diameter of a “ toothpick ,” PANYNJ Port Director Bethann Rooney told local press. The additional maintenance responsibility on the part of tenants is lengthening Maher’s lease talks due to the costs involved. Repairing damaged wharves and other maintenance could add $20 million to a terminal operator’s annual costs under a long-term lease. The alternative is spending up to $250 million to fully replace a damaged berth. With each terminal having three or four big-ship berths, a terminal operator could face up to $1 billion in replacement costs. Moreover, any berth replacement would reduce capacity at the port, requiring terminals to coordinate such projects as they occur. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Maritime

North American ports

Port News

Macquarie looks to keep hold on NY-NJ terminal amid lease talks

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The investigation centers on terminal service agreements that may have required container lines to commit to route a share of their cargo through Port Houston. </div>

The investigation centers on terminal service agreements that may have required container lines to commit to route a share of their cargo through Port Houston.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has launched an investigation into service agreements between Port Houston and major container lines that may require some carriers to deliver a percentage of loaded containers through the largest port along the US Gulf Coast. The agency, in a filing made Friday, ordered the port and carriers to provide information and data relating to what conditions caused carriers to agree to or refuse to sign terminal service agreements with Port Houston. The FMC’s Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations and Compliance (BEIC) wants to know about previous agreements, including language on cargo commitments and details on penalties levied in instances when carriers failed to meet those obligations. The FMC also wants to determine if there were any “unreasonable, unfair, unjust, or discriminatory behaviors” related to the agreements. The agency is seeking to understand the impact the agreements had on the competitiveness and reliability of the US Gulf shipping system and whether there were any “unfair and deceptive practices” related to the agreements, according to the filing. The ocean carriers mentioned in the filing include CMA CGM, Evergreen Line, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk Line, Mediterranean Shipping Co., Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The FMC said it may seek information from other ocean carriers, port authorities and other related entities. The filing didn’t specify if the percentage of loaded containers required within service agreements referred to the carriers’ Gulf networks specifically or US networks overall. Terminal service agreements generally have minimal throughput requirements in which carriers are rewarded or penalized if they exceed or fail to meet cargo obligations. Port Houston operates the Barbours Cut and the Bayport container terminals. Houston is the fifth-busiest US container port and handled approximately 71% of laden volumes moving through the Gulf region last year, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston wasn’t immediately available for comment. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) has launched an investigation into service agreements between Port Houston and major container lines that may require some carriers to deliver a percentage of loaded containers through the largest port along the US Gulf Coast. The agency, in a filing made Friday, ordered the port and carriers to provide information and data relating to what conditions caused carriers to agree to or refuse to sign terminal service agreements with Port Houston. The FMC’s Bureau of Enforcement, Investigations and Compliance (BEIC) wants to know about previous agreements, including language on cargo commitments and details on penalties levied in instances when carriers failed to meet those obligations. The FMC also wants to determine if there were any “unreasonable, unfair, unjust, or discriminatory behaviors” related to the agreements. The agency is seeking to understand the impact the agreements had on the competitiveness and reliability of the US Gulf shipping system and whether there were any “unfair and deceptive practices” related to the agreements, according to the filing. The ocean carriers mentioned in the filing include CMA CGM, Evergreen Line, Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk Line, Mediterranean Shipping Co., Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping Services. The FMC said it may seek information from other ocean carriers, port authorities and other related entities. The filing didn’t specify if the percentage of loaded containers required within service agreements referred to the carriers’ Gulf networks specifically or US networks overall. Terminal service agreements generally have minimal throughput requirements in which carriers are rewarded or penalized if they exceed or fail to meet cargo obligations. Port Houston operates the Barbours Cut and the Bayport container terminals. Houston is the fifth-busiest US container port and handled approximately 71% of laden volumes moving through the Gulf region last year, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Port Houston wasn’t immediately available for comment. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

FMC probing service agreements between Port Houston, ocean carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of the region. </div>

The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of the region.

<div class="phx-topic">J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US provider of domestic intermodal shipping, began assessing peak-season surcharges of up to $1,500 per container this week in Southern California. The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of Southern California. The affected customers are companies whose freight volumes peak ahead of the holiday shopping season, indicating the surcharges are aimed at only some shippers. Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing for J.B. Hunt, said the surcharges are necessary for the company to remain agile and resilient enough to support shippers during busy times. “As [federal] trade policy negotiations continue, we are anticipating continued volatility and increasing demand from our customers,” Frazier told the Journal of Commerce in a statement. “To prepare and position capacity, we are engaging in customer discussions about anticipated peak season surcharges in July.” Still, a half-dozen shippers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce about the surcharges expressed frustration, questioning whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition empty containers to Southern California. They also pointed to tepid intermodal volume data published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). “Starting a peak [surcharge] on July 13 is crazy and then they have it ending in December, even though J.B. Hunt told me it doesn’t expect peak [season] to last that long,” said one of the shippers, who did not want to be identified. “We tried to go back and negotiate. They said, ‘Look, if you’re going to give the freight to somebody else, that’s fine.’ I feel like J.B. Hunt rates were very cheap during the bids earlier this year and perhaps now they’re trying to make up for it.” The surcharges are not applied universally, but only after loads surpass a shipper’s weekly allotment. For example, if a shipper typically moves 100 containers out of Southern California via BNSF Railway per week, J.B. Hunt may allocate 120 containers as the peak-season allowance. BNSF is J.B. Hunt’s exclusive partner in the western US. The surcharge would apply only to shipments above the peak season threshold. This marks the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/import-surge-pushing-los-angeles-outbound-spot-truck-rates-higher-5724894">second consecutive year</a> that J.B. Hunt has imposed surcharges exceeding $1,000 on customers who ramp up shipping between July and October. Last year, the company said the fees were necessary to manage market volatility while maintaining service standards, a rationale that likely underlies the latest surcharges. <h3>BNSF volume not spiking in recent weeks </h3>BNSF’s total intermodal volumes declined year over year for seven consecutive weeks from May through late June, but rose 5% for the week ended July 4, according to STB data. Data from RailState, which tracks volume in Southern California, shows BNSF’s volume gains came from international intermodal, while domestic intermodal volumes remained muted. It’s unlikely that volumes in the upcoming peak season will exceed that of a year ago across all North American Class I railroads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Meanwhile, ocean carriers have backed away from proposed spot rate increases, which matters because volumes moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach feed both international and domestic intermodal flows in Southern California. Spot market ocean rates to the West Coast have <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/container-lines-cutting-trans-pacific-capacity-overhang-6040426">declined steadily</a> since peaking in early June, due in part to soft demand. Many retailers accelerated shipments to avoid possible tariff increases under the Trump administration. J.B. Hunt’s decision to implement a peak season surcharge could push its competitors, such as Hub Group, Schneider National, STG Logistics and Swift Intermodal, to impose similar, if smaller, surcharges. Union Pacific Railroad may also implement a small surcharge for using rail-owned equipment in Southern California, if only to prevent too much volume shifting from J.B. Hunt and BNSF to UP. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

J.B. Hunt Transport Services, the largest US provider of domestic intermodal shipping, began assessing peak-season surcharges of up to $1,500 per container this week in Southern California. The surcharges, which took effect Sunday, apply to select customers who exceed their peak-season allotment of containers out of Southern California. The affected customers are companies whose freight volumes peak ahead of the holiday shopping season, indicating the surcharges are aimed at only some shippers. Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales and marketing for J.B. Hunt, said the surcharges are necessary for the company to remain agile and resilient enough to support shippers during busy times. “As [federal] trade policy negotiations continue, we are anticipating continued volatility and increasing demand from our customers,” Frazier told the Journal of Commerce in a statement. “To prepare and position capacity, we are engaging in customer discussions about anticipated peak season surcharges in July.” Still, a half-dozen shippers who spoke with the Journal of Commerce about the surcharges expressed frustration, questioning whether J.B. Hunt incurs $1,500 in costs to reposition empty containers to Southern California. They also pointed to tepid intermodal volume data published by the Association of American Railroads (AAR) and the US Surface Transportation Board (STB). “Starting a peak [surcharge] on July 13 is crazy and then they have it ending in December, even though J.B. Hunt told me it doesn’t expect peak [season] to last that long,” said one of the shippers, who did not want to be identified. “We tried to go back and negotiate. They said, ‘Look, if you’re going to give the freight to somebody else, that’s fine.’ I feel like J.B. Hunt rates were very cheap during the bids earlier this year and perhaps now they’re trying to make up for it.” The surcharges are not applied universally, but only after loads surpass a shipper’s weekly allotment. For example, if a shipper typically moves 100 containers out of Southern California via BNSF Railway per week, J.B. Hunt may allocate 120 containers as the peak-season allowance. BNSF is J.B. Hunt’s exclusive partner in the western US. The surcharge would apply only to shipments above the peak season threshold. This marks the second consecutive year that J.B. Hunt has imposed surcharges exceeding $1,000 on customers who ramp up shipping between July and October. Last year, the company said the fees were necessary to manage market volatility while maintaining service standards, a rationale that likely underlies the latest surcharges. BNSF volume not spiking in recent weeks BNSF’s total intermodal volumes declined year over year for seven consecutive weeks from May through late June, but rose 5% for the week ended July 4, according to STB data. Data from RailState, which tracks volume in Southern California, shows BNSF’s volume gains came from international intermodal, while domestic intermodal volumes remained muted. It’s unlikely that volumes in the upcoming peak season will exceed that of a year ago across all North American Class I railroads, according to a Journal of Commerce analysis of data from the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Meanwhile, ocean carriers have backed away from proposed spot rate increases, which matters because volumes moving through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach feed both international and domestic intermodal flows in Southern California. Spot market ocean rates to the West Coast have declined steadily since peaking in early June, due in part to soft demand. Many retailers accelerated shipments to avoid possible tariff increases under the Trump administration. J.B. Hunt’s decision to implement a peak season surcharge could push its competitors, such as Hub Group, Schneider National, STG Logistics and Swift Intermodal, to impose similar, if smaller, surcharges. Union Pacific Railroad may also implement a small surcharge for using rail-owned equipment in Southern California, if only to prevent too much volume shifting from J.B. Hunt and BNSF to UP. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Rail News

Surface

J.B. Hunt hits some shippers with big surcharges in Southern California

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the longer voyages are also seeing container shipping companies cutting the average fuel intensity per TEU mile and ensuring vessels are sailing full. </div>

But the longer voyages are also seeing container shipping companies cutting the average fuel intensity per TEU mile and ensuring vessels are sailing full.

<div class="phx-topic">Container traffic diversions around southern Africa to avoid attacks in the Red Sea drove up emissions in early 2025 by nearly one-fifth compared with a year earlier. But while ocean carriers have improved their fuel burning and ship utilization, recent attacks in the Red Sea have killed any hopes of a return to more fuel-efficient transits via the Suez Canal this year. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the first quarter rose 19.38% year over year to just under 60 million tons, according to VesselBot, a sustainable supply chain platform. In 2024, emissions jumped 45% on container trades tied to Europe compared with 2023, according to European Union data. The southern Africa route for the Asia-Europe trade has been in operation since Houthi militants began targeting commercial shipping in late 2023. It is a 30% longer route than using the Suez Canal and adds 10-12 days to transits, absorbing up to 10% of global container shipping capacity and keeping rates elevated. “In an era with high focus on reductions of carbon emissions, the impact of the Red Sea crisis on specifically container shipping has been an increase in emissions matching the total annual emissions of Cambodia,” Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, wrote in his Sunday Spotlight. “The responsibility for this substantial increase in carbon emissions is solely to be placed on the Houthis. The consequence of their actions has been to more than negate years of effort by the container lines to reduce the carbon emissions for container shipping,” he added. Houthi militant attacks last week on two vessels within three days, leaving four seafarers dead and 11 unaccounted for, killed off <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/new-houthi-attacks-likely-kill-hopes-of-shipping-returning-to-red-sea-this-year-6040923">any prospect of major ocean carriers returning to Suez Canal</a> transits in 2025. <h3>Greater efficiency </h3>But as emissions from container shipping increase, carriers sailing around Africa are optimizing voyage efficiency by reducing speed and the average emission intensity and ensuring vessels are sailing full, according to the VesselBot report. Better environmental performance per unit of cargo transported could be seen in the first-quarter average emissions intensity of 206.93 grams of well-to-wake CO2 per TEU-kilometer compared with 231.55 in the first three months of last year. VesselBot also found ship utilization in the first quarter for vessels using the round-Africa route was higher than 80% as more cargo was transported on fewer ships. The rise in shipping emissions will find its way into the pockets of European cargo owners as regulators phase in the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/european-parliament-approves-shipping-ets-but-stakeholders-wary-5202492">EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)</a> and the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/container-carriers-to-shoulder-bulk-of-europe-fuel-intensity-rule-5192246">FuelEU Maritime regulation</a>. The ETS tax on carrier emissions on voyages beginning or ending in the EU this year is at 40% and will increase to 70% from Jan. 1, 2026, with 100% of emissions charged in 2027. Also from Jan. 1, the new FuelEU Maritime regulation will set limits on the yearly average GHG intensity of the energy used by ships that call at European ports. These limits will gradually decrease over time, starting with a 2% reduction by 2025 and reaching an 80% reduction by 2050. Customer advisories show carriers plan to “simplify the process” by merging compliance with the EU ETS and FuelEU regulations into one fuel surcharge, but this move has not gone down well with shippers. There has been little transparency when carriers pass this cost to customers, James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers’ Forum, told the Journal of Commerce. “Shippers quite reasonably ask why they are paying a regulatory penalty as well as the difference in operating costs for the new technology. Frustration over the lines’ lack of engagement with customers will make building this confidence and unity of purpose a tough job.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Container traffic diversions around southern Africa to avoid attacks in the Red Sea drove up emissions in early 2025 by nearly one-fifth compared with a year earlier. But while ocean carriers have improved their fuel burning and ship utilization, recent attacks in the Red Sea have killed any hopes of a return to more fuel-efficient transits via the Suez Canal this year. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) in the first quarter rose 19.38% year over year to just under 60 million tons, according to VesselBot, a sustainable supply chain platform. In 2024, emissions jumped 45% on container trades tied to Europe compared with 2023, according to European Union data. The southern Africa route for the Asia-Europe trade has been in operation since Houthi militants began targeting commercial shipping in late 2023. It is a 30% longer route than using the Suez Canal and adds 10-12 days to transits, absorbing up to 10% of global container shipping capacity and keeping rates elevated. “In an era with high focus on reductions of carbon emissions, the impact of the Red Sea crisis on specifically container shipping has been an increase in emissions matching the total annual emissions of Cambodia,” Alan Murphy, CEO of Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, wrote in his Sunday Spotlight. “The responsibility for this substantial increase in carbon emissions is solely to be placed on the Houthis. The consequence of their actions has been to more than negate years of effort by the container lines to reduce the carbon emissions for container shipping,” he added. Houthi militant attacks last week on two vessels within three days, leaving four seafarers dead and 11 unaccounted for, killed off any prospect of major ocean carriers returning to Suez Canal transits in 2025. Greater efficiency But as emissions from container shipping increase, carriers sailing around Africa are optimizing voyage efficiency by reducing speed and the average emission intensity and ensuring vessels are sailing full, according to the VesselBot report. Better environmental performance per unit of cargo transported could be seen in the first-quarter average emissions intensity of 206.93 grams of well-to-wake CO2 per TEU-kilometer compared with 231.55 in the first three months of last year. VesselBot also found ship utilization in the first quarter for vessels using the round-Africa route was higher than 80% as more cargo was transported on fewer ships. The rise in shipping emissions will find its way into the pockets of European cargo owners as regulators phase in the EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) and the FuelEU Maritime regulation . The ETS tax on carrier emissions on voyages beginning or ending in the EU this year is at 40% and will increase to 70% from Jan. 1, 2026, with 100% of emissions charged in 2027. Also from Jan. 1, the new FuelEU Maritime regulation will set limits on the yearly average GHG intensity of the energy used by ships that call at European ports. These limits will gradually decrease over time, starting with a 2% reduction by 2025 and reaching an 80% reduction by 2050. Customer advisories show carriers plan to “simplify the process” by merging compliance with the EU ETS and FuelEU regulations into one fuel surcharge, but this move has not gone down well with shippers. There has been little transparency when carriers pass this cost to customers, James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers’ Forum, told the Journal of Commerce. “Shippers quite reasonably ask why they are paying a regulatory penalty as well as the difference in operating costs for the new technology. Frustration over the lines’ lack of engagement with customers will make building this confidence and unity of purpose a tough job.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Asia-Europe

Africa diversions drive sharp rise in ocean carrier emissions

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The journey time, about two to three days better than typical industry metrics, comes despite congestion in other parts of partner CPKC’s network.</div>

The journey time, about two to three days better than typical industry metrics, comes despite congestion in other parts of partner CPKC’s network.

<div class="phx-topic">Schneider National said Friday its flagship Mexico Midwest Express (MMX) intermodal service with partner Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is continuing to deliver strong results in 2025, offering faster transit times and higher on-time reliability than many cross-border alternatives despite congestion in other parts of CPKC’s network. The MMX service, launched two years ago, connects inland Mexican cities such as Monterrey and San Luis Potosí with Chicago via a single-line rail route. The service bypasses traditional interchange delays at the border, with two spans over the Laredo bridge and switching yards on each side of the border to handle crew changes. While Schneider did not disclose current shipment totals due to its quiet period ahead of the release of its second-quarter earnings, the company said MMX performance metrics through the first half of 2025 were strong, with average transit times of four days and a cargo theft rate of less than 0.02%. Schneider also said the on-time performance of MMX remains above 95%. The typical transit time from Monterrey to Chicago is about six or seven days. “Decreasing shipping time by even a few days matters to our customers because the faster products can get on the shelves, the faster those items can land in the hands of consumers,” Michael Baumgardt, Schneider’s senior vice president of intermodal, said in a statement. The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) reported that railroads hauled a combined 86,000-plus domestic containers this year through May 31, a 21% increase compared with the same period a year earlier. Railroads hauled nearly 60,000 domestic containers to the Midwest during the same period, up 9% from a year earlier. Schneider is currently the only intermodal provider offering a true single-line cross-border solution from Mexico to the Midwest, eliminating any chance of delays caused by an interchange between two railroads. Schneider said service on the MMX has not deteriorated much since CPKC’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cpkc-acknowledges-service-woes-to-us-regulators-vows-remediation-6030412">messy IT transition</a> in May that affected service in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The exception is that some shippers have experienced lengthy delays moving cargo from Laredo to Chicago because the container dwell inside the Laredo yard is up 122% since early May compared with a year ago. Schneider rivals <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jb-hunt-launching-quantum-de-mexico-for-time-sensitive-cross-border-freight-6014579">J.B. Hunt Transport Services</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hub-group-boosts-cross-border-business-in-jv-with-mexican-dray-carrier-5745355">Hub Group</a> have also ramped up investments in cross-border intermodal in recent months, introducing new services and partnerships aimed at capturing a growing share of freight moving between the US and Mexico. Union Pacific Railroad completed a pilot program this spring to speed up the handoff between Mexican and US crews by doing it inside UP’s Eagle Pass terminal rather than on the middle of the International Railway Bridge. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Schneider National said Friday its flagship Mexico Midwest Express (MMX) intermodal service with partner Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) is continuing to deliver strong results in 2025, offering faster transit times and higher on-time reliability than many cross-border alternatives despite congestion in other parts of CPKC’s network. The MMX service, launched two years ago, connects inland Mexican cities such as Monterrey and San Luis Potosí with Chicago via a single-line rail route. The service bypasses traditional interchange delays at the border, with two spans over the Laredo bridge and switching yards on each side of the border to handle crew changes. While Schneider did not disclose current shipment totals due to its quiet period ahead of the release of its second-quarter earnings, the company said MMX performance metrics through the first half of 2025 were strong, with average transit times of four days and a cargo theft rate of less than 0.02%. Schneider also said the on-time performance of MMX remains above 95%. The typical transit time from Monterrey to Chicago is about six or seven days. “Decreasing shipping time by even a few days matters to our customers because the faster products can get on the shelves, the faster those items can land in the hands of consumers,” Michael Baumgardt, Schneider’s senior vice president of intermodal, said in a statement. The Intermodal Association of North America (IANA) reported that railroads hauled a combined 86,000-plus domestic containers this year through May 31, a 21% increase compared with the same period a year earlier. Railroads hauled nearly 60,000 domestic containers to the Midwest during the same period, up 9% from a year earlier. Schneider is currently the only intermodal provider offering a true single-line cross-border solution from Mexico to the Midwest, eliminating any chance of delays caused by an interchange between two railroads. Schneider said service on the MMX has not deteriorated much since CPKC’s messy IT transition in May that affected service in Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The exception is that some shippers have experienced lengthy delays moving cargo from Laredo to Chicago because the container dwell inside the Laredo yard is up 122% since early May compared with a year ago. Schneider rivals J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Hub Group have also ramped up investments in cross-border intermodal in recent months, introducing new services and partnerships aimed at capturing a growing share of freight moving between the US and Mexico. Union Pacific Railroad completed a pilot program this spring to speed up the handoff between Mexican and US crews by doing it inside UP’s Eagle Pass terminal rather than on the middle of the International Railway Bridge. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Schneider says MMX service delivering four-day Mexico-Chicago transit time

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION AND TPM26

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

UPGRADE TO GOLD FOR JUST $595

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription

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


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Macquarie looks to keep hold on NY-NJ terminal amid lease talks

FMC probing service agreements between Port Houston, ocean carriers

J.B. Hunt hits some shippers with big surcharges in Southern California