<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A group of agricultural exports blames ocean carriers and terminal operators for creating crippling terminal congestion and then profiting off the problem.</div>

A group of agricultural exports blames ocean carriers and terminal operators for creating crippling terminal congestion and then profiting off the problem.

3620051_FI.jpg

<div>Ocean carriers and terminal operators are largely to blame for congestion at terminals and then profit off those conditions by charging demurrage fees, according to a group of agricultural shippers.The Agricultural Transportation Coalition (AgTC) made the claims in a filing to the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) late on Oct. 31, the agency’s deadline for accepting comments on its proposed rule on the highly charged subject of detention and demurrage.It’s another example of the deep divide between beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and ocean carriers and terminals about how detention and demurrage became such a huge problem and whether the penalties truly...

Ocean carriers and terminal operators are largely to blame for congestion at terminals and then profit off those conditions by charging demurrage fees, according to a group of agricultural shippers. The Agricultural Transportation Coalition (AgTC) made the claims in a filing to the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) late on Oct. 31, the agency’s deadline for accepting comments on its proposed rule on the highly charged subject of detention and demurrage. It’s another example of the deep divide between beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) and ocean carriers and terminals about how detention and demurrage became such a huge problem and whether the penalties truly incentivize cargo flow or line the pockets of international companies. The AgTC’s comments are part of a long-running dispute between cargo owners and truckers , and marine terminals and carriers on when to levy detention and demurrage fees. Cargo owners don’t believe it’s fair to be penalized when crippling congestion prevents the timely pick-up and return of containers, while carriers and marine terminals counter they lose business and incur higher operating costs when equipment is idle. “The exporters and truckers did not and do not cause the congestion and delay, but are suffering greatly from it. To pile on demurrage and detention charges, warrants the Commission’s attention,” the AgTC wrote. “At least one of our members [is] being assessed over $15 million (in charges), others in the $500,000 to $800,000 range, and all our exporters, thousands of dollars.” FMC commissioner Rebecca Dye has said the agency isn’t seeking to determine “fault” or whether the factors of calculating detention and demurrage fees are fair. Instead, she said the agency’s recommendations focus on how it will consider whether fees are reasonable to encourage supply chain fluidity. Who created the congestion issue? “That congestion and delay is caused by the carriers/terminals themselves jamming massive ships into terminals not built for such volumes, by ‘box rules’ that limit chassis access, and other actions. It is extraordinarily unfair for the Commission to allow those under its jurisdiction who cause the congestion and delay, to impose penalties on others,” AgTC wrote. Photo credit: Ari Ashe. Ocean carriers and marine terminal operators provide a different view, arguing that BCOs are equally responsible for the massive containerships and terminal congestion. With BCOs shopping around for rates, market forces required ocean carriers to find ways to provide lower rates to win business. To deliver those savings, ocean carriers ordered larger vessels capable of holding more containers. They also had to develop a strategy as cargo volumes began to rise after the recession of 2008-09. Ocean carriers also privately point out it’s the BCOs who keep the system of box rules going because the below-cost chassis are a real bargain . The math shows that the difference between a $7 or $8 per day chassis under a door contract using box rules versus a $15 at-cost chassis pool, such as the North American Chassis Pool Cooperative, can save at least $100,000 per year. By comparing the below-cost chassis with a $20 to $25 daily rental — the rate of TRAC Intermodal, Direct ChassisLink Inc., or Flexi-Van Leasing, Inc. — a high-volume BCO can save more than $500,000. The chassis savings alone can wipe out much of demurrage costs. Marine terminal operators can also point to improvements to address supply chain fluidity, whether it’s moving chassis depots off site to increase container storage capacity, buying more container handling equipment , building additional container stacks , implementing appointment systems to meter truck flows, or providing early morning and weekend hours. The problem with the appointment systems and off-peak hours, which perhaps are the most critical to spreading the flow of trucks evenly throughout the day rather than in concentrated bursts, is that many BCOs don’t operate distribution centers on a 24-7 basis. While the Port of Virginia, for example, is open to truckers at 4 a.m., the consignee receiving the container may not open until 9 a.m. or might be closed on Saturdays and Sundays. It’s the same issue when railroads blame shippers for storage charges, arguing that they are open on the weekends so the customer should be, too. It’s a contentious dynamic between cargo owners and terminal operators. “The carriers’ argument that they need an incentive for shippers to move their cargo/containers faster, is backwards ... Thus far, no one has been able to identify an exporter who wants his/her cargo to move more slowly,” the AgTC counters. “With contractual delivery deadlines and perishable condition time limits, [BCOs] are always pushing the carriers and the terminals to move the containers more quickly, never more so than recently as the ships have become larger, sailings less frequent and more tardy.” Are detention charges necessary? The AgTC also took ocean carriers to task for charging detention fees when an empty container isn’t promptly returned to a terminal, asking the FMC to examine whether ocean carriers are actually harmed if a box is a day late. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of empty containers sitting on the property of the largest United States marine terminals on any given day. “This practice of offering larger shippers (with more containers) much longer free time, either in the contract or in practice, undermines the carriers’ arguments that they really have to have the containers back very quickly,” the AgTC wrote. “If they need the containers back in five days, then require that of all shippers; exempting the shippers with the largest number of containers from the five-day limits suggests a lack of carrier commitment to rapid return of containers.” Ocean carriers believe the detention issue is more about preventative measures because privately they acknowledge one late empty container won’t translate into an exporter being unable to get a box. Given the trade imbalance, there are enough empty containers available for US exporters. It’s about discouraging bad behavior, the ocean carriers argue. If one BCO returns an empty container a day late, it’s not a problem. If hundreds or thousands, however, were to return containers a day late, then it would amount to a logistics problem. The FMC rulemaking, if it goes forward, won’t wade this deep into the issues because Dye has been clear about using commercial solutions rather than government edicts to resolve disputes between parties. If a dispute rose to the FMC level, however, the rule could lay the groundwork for the agency to examine the reasonableness of detention and demurrage fees on a case-by-case basis. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @arijashe .

North American ports

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Ag shippers blame ocean carriers, terminals for demurrage

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Kevin Price, president of the port’s stevedoring services company Gateway Terminals, will join GPA in July as president and then add the CEO’s role in mid-2027. </div>

Kevin Price, president of the port’s stevedoring services company Gateway Terminals, will join GPA in July as president and then add the CEO’s role in mid-2027.  

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The Georgia Ports Authority on Tuesday unveiled an 18-month succession plan that will see long-time CEO Griff Lynch step down in mid-2027 and replaced by a marine terminals veteran who will initially come aboard as GPA’s president this summer.Kevin Price, president of the Port of Savannah’s stevedoring services company Gateway Terminals, will join GPA in July as president and then add the CEO’s role in mid-2027, GPA said in a statement. Price will lead Savannah as it plans its next growth phase with the opening of a new container terminal in the next decade.“Georgia Ports’ long-term approach with its employees, customers, business partners and infrastructure investments are competitive differentiators,” Price said the statement. Price has served as president of Gateway Terminals since 2022. Prior to that, he spent four years at stevedore Virginia International Terminals where he rose to chief operating officer. His prior experience includes time at the former Global Container Terminals facility in New Jersey, and with Maersk and APM Terminals in their Northeast operations. Under Lynch, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lynch-to-succeed-foltz-as-georgia-ports-chief-5212877">who became chief executive of the port in 2016</a>, Savannah saw total container volumes handled go from 3.6 million TEUs to 5.7 million TEUs in 2025, a 4.5% annual average rate. During that time, the Port of Savannah <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/savannah-expands-with-2030-goal-of-9-million-teu-5222906">dredged its harbor to 47 feet</a> and modernized <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/savannah-project-reflects-growing-premium-for-us-berth-space-5243335">the Garden City Terminal, allowing it to handle three post-Panamax ships at once</a>. The GPA likewise built up rail capacity at Savannah with upgrades to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-se-ports-prepping-more-growth-amid-continued-west-coast-diversions_20230306.html">the Mason Mega rail terminal that allowed it to handle 1 million container lifts annually</a>, and the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-southeast-ports-expand-intermodal-rail-reach-5245618">completion of the Appalachian Regional Port in 2018</a> and expected completion this year of <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ns-to-eliminate-midwest-service-from-charleston-savannah-due-to-low-volumes-5200097">the Blue Ridge Connector inland port</a>. Along with finishing the Blue Ridge Connector, the GPA’s near-term plans include opening two new container berths at its Ocean Terminal by 2027. The GPA is also working with the state to increase the air clearance for ships on the Savannah River by raising the Talmadge Bridge. The GPA said in its most recent annual report that it expects container volume to increase just over 45% through 2035. That equates to a 3.7% average annual growth rate that would put Savannah’s volumes at 8.3 million TEUs over the next decade. To handle that growth, the GPA is looking to secure a permit for the construction of the Savannah Container Terminal on Tybee Island at the mouth of the Savannah River. The terminal, which would have berths for three large vessels, is targeted for completion in 2032 at a cost of roughly $4.5 billion. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a> </div>

The Georgia Ports Authority on Tuesday unveiled an 18-month succession plan that will see long-time CEO Griff Lynch step down in mid-2027 and replaced by a marine terminals veteran who will initially come aboard as GPA’s president this summer. Kevin Price, president of the Port of Savannah’s stevedoring services company Gateway Terminals, will join GPA in July as president and then add the CEO’s role in mid-2027, GPA said in a statement. Price will lead Savannah as it plans its next growth phase with the opening of a new container terminal in the next decade. “Georgia Ports’ long-term approach with its employees, customers, business partners and infrastructure investments are competitive differentiators,” Price said the statement. Price has served as president of Gateway Terminals since 2022. Prior to that, he spent four years at stevedore Virginia International Terminals where he rose to chief operating officer. His prior experience includes time at the former Global Container Terminals facility in New Jersey, and with Maersk and APM Terminals in their Northeast operations. Under Lynch, who became chief executive of the port in 2016 , Savannah saw total container volumes handled go from 3.6 million TEUs to 5.7 million TEUs in 2025, a 4.5% annual average rate. During that time, the Port of Savannah dredged its harbor to 47 feet and modernized the Garden City Terminal, allowing it to handle three post-Panamax ships at once . The GPA likewise built up rail capacity at Savannah with upgrades to the Mason Mega rail terminal that allowed it to handle 1 million container lifts annually , and the completion of the Appalachian Regional Port in 2018 and expected completion this year of the Blue Ridge Connector inland port . Along with finishing the Blue Ridge Connector, the GPA’s near-term plans include opening two new container berths at its Ocean Terminal by 2027. The GPA is also working with the state to increase the air clearance for ships on the Savannah River by raising the Talmadge Bridge. The GPA said in its most recent annual report that it expects container volume to increase just over 45% through 2035. That equates to a 3.7% average annual growth rate that would put Savannah’s volumes at 8.3 million TEUs over the next decade. To handle that growth, the GPA is looking to secure a permit for the construction of the Savannah Container Terminal on Tybee Island at the mouth of the Savannah River. The terminal, which would have berths for three large vessels, is targeted for completion in 2032 at a cost of roughly $4.5 billion. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

GPA names next CEO as Savannah readies for new growth phase

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are more reliable under Gemini than in standalone services, while other alliances showed uneven performance among partners. </div>

Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are more reliable under Gemini than in standalone services, while other alliances showed uneven performance among partners.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd broke further away from other ocean carriers in on-time performance in 2025, although vessels under their new Gemini Cooperation alliance showed better reliability than their standalone services, data from Xeneta shows. Most other carriers saw performance remaining flat last year, with reliability varying among other alliances. Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed that Maersk saw 56% of all its ships arrive on time last year, with an average delay of two days. That is up from the 37% on-time performance and average two-and-half day delay reported at the end of 2024 by eeSea, which Xeneta acquired last August. Meanwhile, second-place Hapag-Lloyd also saw improvement in its 2025 overall reliability, Xeneta data showed, with 52% of all vessels arriving on time and an average delay of three days. At the end of 2024, Hapag-Lloyd saw only about a fifth of its ships arriving on time with an average delay of close to five days. The gain for each carrier stems from the jointly-operated services under the Gemini partnership, with vessels in the alliance hitting 81% schedule reliability. But Xeneta said the performance data shows “the reliability of their non-alliance partnerships generally falls short of Gemini’s optimized structure.”The average delay days for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are the lowest among the 12 global ocean carriers in Xeneta’s benchmark. Among that group, delays averaged about four-and-half days. Cosco Shipping and Wan Hai Lines saw average delays of just under three-and-half days, while HMM saw an average eight-and-half-day delay, the highest among the dozen carriers on Xeneta’s list. <h3>Alliance partners show mixed results</h3>Container alliances other than Gemini saw their overall performance in 2025 remain largely flat, Xeneta’s data showed. Individual ocean carrier performance within those alliances varied, which Xeneta said highlighted the need for shippers to know who is operating a particular service. Xeneta said Ocean Alliance had an overall on-time performance of 26% in 2025, which is a step up from the 20% reported for the alliance in 2024. The gain stems largely from improvements at CMA CGM, which saw on-time performance reach 33% in 2025 versus 27% in 2024, and Cosco Shipping, which reached 35% in 2025 compared with a 24% rate the year prior. Those gains appeared to offset performance from Ocean Alliance partner Evergreen Marine, which lagged with a 25% on-time performance last year. “This is valuable evidence for shippers to consider selecting CMA CGM or COSCO on their non-alliance offerings, or to potentially lean into Ocean Alliance services where they function as the primary vessel providers instead of [Evergreen],” Xeneta said.A similar dynamic played out with the Premier Alliance, which had an overall on-time performance of 26% last year. Partners Ocean Network Express and Yang Ming both saw individual on-time performance hit close to that mark, but HMM was only at a 15% on-time rate, according to Xeneta.Mediterranean Shipping Co. saw its on-time performance hit 25% last year with a nearly five-day average delay, “just a pace above the bottom of our rankings” Xeneta said. Zim Integrated Shipping Services, which has container space-sharing agreements with MSC on several lanes, saw last year’s on-time performance improve to 36%, up from 27% in 2024 and placing it in the top three for 2025. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd broke further away from other ocean carriers in on-time performance in 2025, although vessels under their new Gemini Cooperation alliance showed better reliability than their standalone services, data from Xeneta shows. Most other carriers saw performance remaining flat last year, with reliability varying among other alliances. Xeneta’s “Schedule Reliability Scorecard” for 2025 showed that Maersk saw 56% of all its ships arrive on time last year, with an average delay of two days. That is up from the 37% on-time performance and average two-and-half day delay reported at the end of 2024 by eeSea, which Xeneta acquired last August. Meanwhile, second-place Hapag-Lloyd also saw improvement in its 2025 overall reliability, Xeneta data showed, with 52% of all vessels arriving on time and an average delay of three days. At the end of 2024, Hapag-Lloyd saw only about a fifth of its ships arriving on time with an average delay of close to five days. The gain for each carrier stems from the jointly-operated services under the Gemini partnership, with vessels in the alliance hitting 81% schedule reliability. But Xeneta said the performance data shows “the reliability of their non-alliance partnerships generally falls short of Gemini’s optimized structure.” The average delay days for Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are the lowest among the 12 global ocean carriers in Xeneta’s benchmark. Among that group, delays averaged about four-and-half days. Cosco Shipping and Wan Hai Lines saw average delays of just under three-and-half days, while HMM saw an average eight-and-half-day delay, the highest among the dozen carriers on Xeneta’s list. Alliance partners show mixed results Container alliances other than Gemini saw their overall performance in 2025 remain largely flat, Xeneta’s data showed. Individual ocean carrier performance within those alliances varied, which Xeneta said highlighted the need for shippers to know who is operating a particular service. Xeneta said Ocean Alliance had an overall on-time performance of 26% in 2025, which is a step up from the 20% reported for the alliance in 2024. The gain stems largely from improvements at CMA CGM, which saw on-time performance reach 33% in 2025 versus 27% in 2024, and Cosco Shipping, which reached 35% in 2025 compared with a 24% rate the year prior. Those gains appeared to offset performance from Ocean Alliance partner Evergreen Marine, which lagged with a 25% on-time performance last year. “This is valuable evidence for shippers to consider selecting CMA CGM or COSCO on their non-alliance offerings, or to potentially lean into Ocean Alliance services where they function as the primary vessel providers instead of [Evergreen],” Xeneta said. A similar dynamic played out with the Premier Alliance, which had an overall on-time performance of 26% last year. Partners Ocean Network Express and Yang Ming both saw individual on-time performance hit close to that mark, but HMM was only at a 15% on-time rate, according to Xeneta. Mediterranean Shipping Co. saw its on-time performance hit 25% last year with a nearly five-day average delay, “just a pace above the bottom of our rankings” Xeneta said. Zim Integrated Shipping Services, which has container space-sharing agreements with MSC on several lanes, saw last year’s on-time performance improve to 36%, up from 27% in 2024 and placing it in the top three for 2025. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Container lines

Gemini schedule reliability shows sum greater than its parts: Xeneta  

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Overall, more than 90% of respondents participating in the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Scorecard were satisfied with domestic intermodal service between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2025. </div>

Overall, more than 90% of respondents participating in the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Scorecard were satisfied with domestic intermodal service between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2025.

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and J.B. Hunt Transport Services were voted the top railroad and domestic intermodal provider, respectively, for the second half of 2025, according to the latest Journal of Commerce <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/domestic-intermodal-service-scorecard">Intermodal Service Scorecard</a> released Tuesday. Overall, more than 90% of respondents were satisfied with domestic intermodal service between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2025, according to the survey of more than 145 shippers and asset-based and non-asset-based intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). The ISS is published twice a year. Railroads saw the biggest improvement, with 91.3% of respondents satisfied with performance during last year’s peak season, up from 77.5% during the same period of 2024. Intermodal providers overall, whether asset- or non-asset-based, also received higher scores. Just under 94% of shippers were satisfied with IMC performance, up from 90.9% during the peak season of 2024. The survey included 100 respondents who were shippers. “In the last six months our volume has been slipping, but Hunt has always provided sufficient equipment,” one shipper wrote in the survey. “They have gone so far as offering to reduce accessorial charges when we run into problems receiving loads at destination, which is a sign that they value our business.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="3f877148-7417-4744-b3a5-e66d957f4430"></dynamic-object></div>J.B. Hunt received 55.9% when shippers were asked to name the best IMC in the second half of 2025. Asset-light and non-asset IMCs came in second with 29% of the vote. That category encompasses asset-light providers such as Alliance Shippers and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, who own some containers, and pure non-asset IMCs such as Mode Transportation and Uber Freight, among many others. Shippers were asked to grade their IMC partners on a five-point scale, with five being the highest. J.B. Hunt received at least 4 out of 5 points in all categories except for pricing, while the asset-light and non-asset IMCs received at least 4 out of 5 in all categories except technology. J.B. Hunt received an overall grade of 4.6 out of 5, while the asset-light and non-asset IMCs received a score of 4.5. “It’s pretty rare when you can pick up the phone and be able to speak with the president of any company, but this is commonplace with InTek Freight and Logistics,” another shipper wrote. “We value long-term relationships with our vendors, and with InTek, it goes beyond a partnership; we feel like they are an extension of our transportation department.” Schneider received the second-best overall score among large asset-owning intermodal providers at 3.7 out of 5; the category consists of providers with more than 10,000 privately-owned containers. <h3>UP wins again for best railroad </h3>Union Pacific edged out rival BNSF Railway for the top railroad for the second consecutive survey, although the two railroads traded first and second place in all the key performance indicators (KPIs). When choosing among all the Class I railroads, 36.3% of IMCs rated UP as the best railroad, while BNSF received 20.5% of the vote. However, when the KPIs are included, the results show that the two railroads are virtually tied with one another atop the list of all railroads, outperforming the two eastern US railroads and two Canadian railroads. It’s the second consecutive survey where UP has outpaced most of its competitors, a stark change from only three years ago under former CEO Lance Fritz, who handed the reins over to current CEO Jim Vena in August 2023. In the last pre-Vena survey, only 17.1% of IMCs were satisfied with UP’s performance. In the latest survey, 80% were satisfied, up from 53.7% during the same period of 2024. UP received an overall score of 4 out of 5 points in the latest survey. BNSF received a 4.1 out of 5, although the difference was less than a tenth of a point. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="6d0852c5-f4fb-408d-8368-5b064b1cbb8b"></dynamic-object></div>Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) struggled for the second consecutive survey, receiving an overall score of 2.7 out of 5 points, while 58.9% of respondents voted it the lowest-performing railroad. While IMCs generally praised CPKC on the high quality of its Mexico Midwest Express service between Mexico and Chicago, most respondents said the railroad struggled on other routes. Common complaints included the railroad providing good customer service for top partners such as Schneider in the US and Consolidated Fastfrate in Canada, but not paying enough attention to other IMCs. “CPKC is not customer-focused. Our marketing contact cannot help us with service issues,” one IMC wrote in the survey. “Working with the CPKC is very frustrating trying to get things done.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and J.B. Hunt Transport Services were voted the top railroad and domestic intermodal provider, respectively, for the second half of 2025, according to the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Service Scorecard released Tuesday. Overall, more than 90% of respondents were satisfied with domestic intermodal service between July 1 and Dec. 31, 2025, according to the survey of more than 145 shippers and asset-based and non-asset-based intermodal marketing companies (IMCs). The ISS is published twice a year. Railroads saw the biggest improvement, with 91.3% of respondents satisfied with performance during last year’s peak season, up from 77.5% during the same period of 2024. Intermodal providers overall, whether asset- or non-asset-based, also received higher scores. Just under 94% of shippers were satisfied with IMC performance, up from 90.9% during the peak season of 2024. The survey included 100 respondents who were shippers. “In the last six months our volume has been slipping, but Hunt has always provided sufficient equipment,” one shipper wrote in the survey. “They have gone so far as offering to reduce accessorial charges when we run into problems receiving loads at destination, which is a sign that they value our business.” J.B. Hunt received 55.9% when shippers were asked to name the best IMC in the second half of 2025. Asset-light and non-asset IMCs came in second with 29% of the vote. That category encompasses asset-light providers such as Alliance Shippers and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, who own some containers, and pure non-asset IMCs such as Mode Transportation and Uber Freight, among many others. Shippers were asked to grade their IMC partners on a five-point scale, with five being the highest. J.B. Hunt received at least 4 out of 5 points in all categories except for pricing, while the asset-light and non-asset IMCs received at least 4 out of 5 in all categories except technology. J.B. Hunt received an overall grade of 4.6 out of 5, while the asset-light and non-asset IMCs received a score of 4.5. “It’s pretty rare when you can pick up the phone and be able to speak with the president of any company, but this is commonplace with InTek Freight and Logistics,” another shipper wrote. “We value long-term relationships with our vendors, and with InTek, it goes beyond a partnership; we feel like they are an extension of our transportation department.” Schneider received the second-best overall score among large asset-owning intermodal providers at 3.7 out of 5; the category consists of providers with more than 10,000 privately-owned containers. UP wins again for best railroad Union Pacific edged out rival BNSF Railway for the top railroad for the second consecutive survey, although the two railroads traded first and second place in all the key performance indicators (KPIs). When choosing among all the Class I railroads, 36.3% of IMCs rated UP as the best railroad, while BNSF received 20.5% of the vote. However, when the KPIs are included, the results show that the two railroads are virtually tied with one another atop the list of all railroads, outperforming the two eastern US railroads and two Canadian railroads. It’s the second consecutive survey where UP has outpaced most of its competitors, a stark change from only three years ago under former CEO Lance Fritz, who handed the reins over to current CEO Jim Vena in August 2023. In the last pre-Vena survey, only 17.1% of IMCs were satisfied with UP’s performance. In the latest survey, 80% were satisfied, up from 53.7% during the same period of 2024. UP received an overall score of 4 out of 5 points in the latest survey. BNSF received a 4.1 out of 5, although the difference was less than a tenth of a point. Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC) struggled for the second consecutive survey, receiving an overall score of 2.7 out of 5 points, while 58.9% of respondents voted it the lowest-performing railroad. While IMCs generally praised CPKC on the high quality of its Mexico Midwest Express service between Mexico and Chicago, most respondents said the railroad struggled on other routes. Common complaints included the railroad providing good customer service for top partners such as Schneider in the US and Consolidated Fastfrate in Canada, but not paying enough attention to other IMCs. “CPKC is not customer-focused. Our marketing contact cannot help us with service issues,” one IMC wrote in the survey. “Working with the CPKC is very frustrating trying to get things done.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

Surface

UP, J.B. Hunt voted best intermodal providers in H2 ’25: JOC survey

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But the recommendations will not include guidance on handling empty container returns, as port stakeholders see it as a separate issue.</div>

But the recommendations will not include guidance on handling empty container returns, as port stakeholders see it as a separate issue.

<div class="phx-topic">A stakeholder group looking at truck appointment systems at Port of New York and New Jersey marine terminals is expected to release its recommendations this month, which steer clear of how those systems address empty container returns. The management of empty returns has been critical for the port’s truckers, but something that other stakeholders said was outside of the group’s legal limits. Beth Rooney, port director for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said at a state of the port event last week that one of her priorities in 2026 is drafting a plan for “moving forward” on 11 final recommendations from the Appointment Systems Working Group (ASWG). “We’re going to step out with draft work plans for how we as a council and hopefully many of you would be willing to help advance those initiatives,” Rooney said to event attendees. ASWG was formed in June 2024 under the auspices of the Council for Port (CPP) Performance, the Port Authority-led discussion group established in 2014 to address stakeholder concerns about cargo operations. The AWSG was formed because “appointment challenges and system outages have presented elevated traffic issues,” the CPP said in July 2024 meeting minutes. One of the main problems the working group identified was the difficulty some truckers face when making a double-move appointment for an empty container return and an import retrieval. The problem was especially bad in the wake of the pandemic due to the high number of empty containers left at the port. Rooney said that even though AWSG sought to include empty container returns in its draft recommendations, the final set will not include any references to the issue. Instead, those will be addressed in a separate set of recommendations. The commercial terms governing empty container handling by truckers became the main hangup for others in the AWSG. Marine terminal operators and ocean carriers also warned the group’s draft recommendations veered into legal and anti-trust issues by requiring marine terminals to offer empty return appointments or that ocean carriers compensate truckers for off-dock empty container returns. Sustainable Terminal Services, a consortium of NY-NJ terminal operators, said in a December letter the AWSG’s draft recommendations “raised significant legal and federal regulatory concerns” by imposing “commercial and financial terms and requirements on particular parties on a collective basis.” The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) was also prepared to withhold support for the AWSG recommendations unless references to empty container returns were removed or a disclaimer was included to say the recommendations were not the CPP’s consensus view. “OCEMA remains committed to working with other stakeholders to find ways to create efficiencies and improve operations in the port,” OCEMA’s letter said. “If this is to be done successfully through the CPP, there needs to be clarity as to the scope of inquiry.” <h3>Off-dock empty returns </h3>The AWSG was formed in response to the growing pains stemming from the rollout of appointment systems, and especially how they impacted truckers during the pandemic. Port Liberty New Jersey rolled out a half-day appointment system in 2016, while APM Terminals started its full-day system in 2020. By November 2024, APM added the ability to make double-move appointments and reported gate processing improvements, CPP minutes show. By March 2025, APM reported truckers were using up to 80% of the available appointments for returning empty containers. APM’s ability to offer double-move appointments, though, depends on how much space it has for empty containers, which itself depends on how quickly they are removed by ocean carriers. To help manage its empty container inventories, APM also began directing some truckers to “off-dock empty storage” in February 2025, meeting minutes show. Truckers say directing empties to the site just outside the port district adds to traffic and makes it difficult to even meet single-move appointments. But Rooney said the recommendations can’t direct marine terminals on offer double-move appointments for all empties or require paying for an off-dock move. “The CPP has no authority to force anyone to do anything,” Rooney said. “That becomes a contractual issue that we can’t delve into.” Instead, the separate, sector-specific recommendations say ocean carriers should proactively and constantly manage their empty container inventory and regularly evacuate to ensure balance in the port area. Lisa Yakomin, president of the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers, which represents the port’s drayage carriers, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that her group’s members look to bring the issue of empty container management before the Federal Maritime Commission and will look to have the issue addressed in standardized container handling contracts administered by the Intermodal Association of North America. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A stakeholder group looking at truck appointment systems at Port of New York and New Jersey marine terminals is expected to release its recommendations this month, which steer clear of how those systems address empty container returns. The management of empty returns has been critical for the port’s truckers, but something that other stakeholders said was outside of the group’s legal limits. Beth Rooney, port director for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, said at a state of the port event last week that one of her priorities in 2026 is drafting a plan for “moving forward” on 11 final recommendations from the Appointment Systems Working Group (ASWG). “We’re going to step out with draft work plans for how we as a council and hopefully many of you would be willing to help advance those initiatives,” Rooney said to event attendees. ASWG was formed in June 2024 under the auspices of the Council for Port (CPP) Performance, the Port Authority-led discussion group established in 2014 to address stakeholder concerns about cargo operations. The AWSG was formed because “appointment challenges and system outages have presented elevated traffic issues,” the CPP said in July 2024 meeting minutes. One of the main problems the working group identified was the difficulty some truckers face when making a double-move appointment for an empty container return and an import retrieval. The problem was especially bad in the wake of the pandemic due to the high number of empty containers left at the port. Rooney said that even though AWSG sought to include empty container returns in its draft recommendations, the final set will not include any references to the issue. Instead, those will be addressed in a separate set of recommendations. The commercial terms governing empty container handling by truckers became the main hangup for others in the AWSG. Marine terminal operators and ocean carriers also warned the group’s draft recommendations veered into legal and anti-trust issues by requiring marine terminals to offer empty return appointments or that ocean carriers compensate truckers for off-dock empty container returns. Sustainable Terminal Services, a consortium of NY-NJ terminal operators, said in a December letter the AWSG’s draft recommendations “raised significant legal and federal regulatory concerns” by imposing “commercial and financial terms and requirements on particular parties on a collective basis.” The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) was also prepared to withhold support for the AWSG recommendations unless references to empty container returns were removed or a disclaimer was included to say the recommendations were not the CPP’s consensus view. “OCEMA remains committed to working with other stakeholders to find ways to create efficiencies and improve operations in the port,” OCEMA’s letter said. “If this is to be done successfully through the CPP, there needs to be clarity as to the scope of inquiry.” Off-dock empty returns The AWSG was formed in response to the growing pains stemming from the rollout of appointment systems, and especially how they impacted truckers during the pandemic. Port Liberty New Jersey rolled out a half-day appointment system in 2016, while APM Terminals started its full-day system in 2020. By November 2024, APM added the ability to make double-move appointments and reported gate processing improvements, CPP minutes show. By March 2025, APM reported truckers were using up to 80% of the available appointments for returning empty containers. APM’s ability to offer double-move appointments, though, depends on how much space it has for empty containers, which itself depends on how quickly they are removed by ocean carriers. To help manage its empty container inventories, APM also began directing some truckers to “off-dock empty storage” in February 2025, meeting minutes show. Truckers say directing empties to the site just outside the port district adds to traffic and makes it difficult to even meet single-move appointments. But Rooney said the recommendations can’t direct marine terminals on offer double-move appointments for all empties or require paying for an off-dock move. “The CPP has no authority to force anyone to do anything,” Rooney said. “That becomes a contractual issue that we can’t delve into.” Instead, the separate, sector-specific recommendations say ocean carriers should proactively and constantly manage their empty container inventory and regularly evacuate to ensure balance in the port area. Lisa Yakomin, president of the Association of Bi-State Motor Carriers, which represents the port’s drayage carriers, said in a statement to the Journal of Commerce that her group’s members look to bring the issue of empty container management before the Federal Maritime Commission and will look to have the issue addressed in standardized container handling contracts administered by the Intermodal Association of North America. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port News

Drayage

Maritime

NY-NJ port readying to guide terminals on truck appointment systems

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier reported a steep drop in profitability as declining rates combined with higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network.</div>

The carrier reported a steep drop in profitability as declining rates combined with higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network.

<div class="phx-topic">A solid increase in Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation-driven volume last year and cost savings across the new network were not enough to offset a sharply correcting market in 2025, the carrier said Monday. Hapag-Lloyd reported a steep drop in profitability for the year as declining rates combined with the higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network to weigh on its 2025 results. Hapag-Lloyd launched the Gemini network with partner Maersk in February 2025. “Robust growth in global trade and the new Gemini network led to an 8% increase in the transport volume to 13.5 million TEUs,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a statement on its preliminary 2025 results. The carrier provided no after-tax figures; its full annual report with a 2026 outlook will be unveiled March 26. Even as demand rose, it was mirrored by a drop in average rates that were down 8% year over year at $1,376 per TEU. That led to full-year revenue falling 1.9% to $21.1 billion and earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) declining 28% to $3.6 billion. While earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were down 60% at $1.1 billion, they was at the higher end of the profitability forecast Hapag-Lloyd gave the market following the announcement of its nine-month results last November. <h3>Gemini savings kicking in </h3>The results showed that much of the 2025 financial damage occurred in the fourth quarter, similar to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/gemini-benefits-face-looming-challenge-from-oversupplied-market-maersk-ceo-6164887">the full-year earnings of Maersk</a> and <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">the fiscal third-quarter results of Ocean Network Express</a>. Hapag-Lloyd’s fourth-quarter volume was up 6% year over year, but revenue fell 7.4% to $5 billion, EBITDA dropped 42% to $800 million and EBIT for the quarter was down 75% at $200 million. “On the other hand, Gemini-related cost savings started kicking in during the second half of 2025 and will be fully realized in 2026,” the carrier said. Hapag-Lloyd’s savings to be generated by Gemini are expected to be between $350 million and $400 million, which is approximately 40% of a total $1 billion in savings the carrier expects to have in place by the end of this year as part of an aggressive cost-savings program across its overall network. Hapag-Lloyd did not provide financials for its Hanseatic Global Terminals division, but it is a key part of the Gemini network. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd control most of their terminal network, which gives the carriers greater berth access and handling productivity than common user facilities, especially in the congested hubs of Europe. That access saw Maersk reporting a record performance in its terminals division in 2025. Maritime consultant Drewry has upgraded its financial year 2025 profit forecast from $20 billion to $32 billion following “better than expected” third-quarter results from carriers and raised the outlook for 2026 from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/frontloading-drags-one-to-a-loss-in-its-fiscal-third-quarter-6161263">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A solid increase in Hapag-Lloyd’s Gemini Cooperation-driven volume last year and cost savings across the new network were not enough to offset a sharply correcting market in 2025, the carrier said Monday. Hapag-Lloyd reported a steep drop in profitability for the year as declining rates combined with the higher costs of rerouting ships around southern Africa and startup expenses for the Gemini network to weigh on its 2025 results. Hapag-Lloyd launched the Gemini network with partner Maersk in February 2025. “Robust growth in global trade and the new Gemini network led to an 8% increase in the transport volume to 13.5 million TEUs,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a statement on its preliminary 2025 results. The carrier provided no after-tax figures; its full annual report with a 2026 outlook will be unveiled March 26. Even as demand rose, it was mirrored by a drop in average rates that were down 8% year over year at $1,376 per TEU. That led to full-year revenue falling 1.9% to $21.1 billion and earnings before interest, taxes, amortization and depreciation (EBITDA) declining 28% to $3.6 billion. While earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) were down 60% at $1.1 billion, they was at the higher end of the profitability forecast Hapag-Lloyd gave the market following the announcement of its nine-month results last November. Gemini savings kicking in The results showed that much of the 2025 financial damage occurred in the fourth quarter, similar to the full-year earnings of Maersk and the fiscal third-quarter results of Ocean Network Express . Hapag-Lloyd’s fourth-quarter volume was up 6% year over year, but revenue fell 7.4% to $5 billion, EBITDA dropped 42% to $800 million and EBIT for the quarter was down 75% at $200 million. “On the other hand, Gemini-related cost savings started kicking in during the second half of 2025 and will be fully realized in 2026,” the carrier said. Hapag-Lloyd’s savings to be generated by Gemini are expected to be between $350 million and $400 million, which is approximately 40% of a total $1 billion in savings the carrier expects to have in place by the end of this year as part of an aggressive cost-savings program across its overall network. Hapag-Lloyd did not provide financials for its Hanseatic Global Terminals division, but it is a key part of the Gemini network. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd control most of their terminal network, which gives the carriers greater berth access and handling productivity than common user facilities, especially in the congested hubs of Europe. That access saw Maersk reporting a record performance in its terminals division in 2025. Maritime consultant Drewry has upgraded its financial year 2025 profit forecast from $20 billion to $32 billion following “better than expected” third-quarter results from carriers and raised the outlook for 2026 from a $10 billion loss to a $1 billion profit. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Fourth-quarter rate slump drags down Hapag-Lloyd’s 2025 financials

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

Discover the news and analysis of supply chain strategies, sourcing and trends covered by the Journal of Commerce. Comprehensive coverage includes customs, trade news, transport news and the latest information about trade regulations.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

Logistics Technology News

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

GPA names next CEO as Savannah readies for new growth phase

Gemini schedule reliability shows sum greater than its parts: Xeneta

UP, J.B. Hunt voted best intermodal providers in H2 ’25: JOC survey