<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Con-way completed a $143.7 million stock offering, raising funds for capital expenditures, including new trucks for its fleets.
 
</div>

Con-way completed a $143.7 million stock offering, raising funds for capital expenditures, including new trucks for its fleets.

<div>Con-way completed a $143.7 million stock offering, raising funds for capital expenditures, including new trucks for its fleets.The trucking and logistics company put 4.3 million shares of its common stock on the market May 12 at $35 a share.The San Mateo, Calif.-based company's cash flow was hurt by the downturn in shipping demand over the past year and by steep less-than-truckload price discounting. After losing $1.9 million in the fourth quarter, Con-way lost $4 million in the first quarter despite a 35 percent increase in revenue from a year ago.-- Contact William B. Cassidy at <a>wcassidy@joc.com</a>.</div>...

Con-way completed a $143.7 million stock offering, raising funds for capital expenditures, including new trucks for its fleets. The trucking and logistics company put 4.3 million shares of its common stock on the market May 12 at $35 a share. The San Mateo, Calif.-based company's cash flow was hurt by the downturn in shipping demand over the past year and by steep less-than-truckload price discounting. After losing $1.9 million in the fourth quarter, Con-way lost $4 million in the first quarter despite a 35 percent increase in revenue from a year ago. -- Contact William B. Cassidy at wcassidy@joc.com .

Trucking News

Con-way Stock Sale Raises $143.7 Million

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Whatever measure is ultimately agreed to by member states, decarbonization experts agree the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back.</div>

Whatever measure is ultimately agreed to by member states, decarbonization experts agree the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Decarbonization experts are running through different scenarios that will enable the International Maritime Organization’s delayed net-zero emissions framework to be formally adopted in November. A best-case scenario will see the IMO framework, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/imo-punts-on-pivotal-net-zero-shipping-regulation-6099141">postponed for a year at a meeting last October</a>, entering into force in 2028, a year later than planned, and coming into effect in 2029. But a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for several years. The Global Maritime Forum and maritime classification society DNV looked separately at the different scenarios for net-zero implementation. And while the views of their decarbonization experts differed, there was consensus that whatever measure is ultimately agreed to this November, the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back. A new report from the Global Maritime Forum was released this week and looked at the different plausible outcomes for the net-zero framework (NZF). "Uncertainty at the IMO: Three scenarios and their consequences for shipping’s transition,” was co-authored by Tristan Smith, associate professor at the UCL Energy Institute, and Femke Spiegelenberg, project manager of the Getting to Zero Coalition within the Global Maritime Forum. Three potential scenarios were covered by the report: adopting the NZF unchanged from the measures voted down last October, adopting a single-tier fuel standard with lower compliance costs, and removing the economic elements altogether. The report noted that each scenario would have materially different impacts on timelines, enforcement, investment signals, revenues, low-income countries, and regional policies. “At a minimum, the implementation dates in the text will need to be adjusted to reflect the postponed adoption,” the report said. “More fundamentally, the political dynamics that led to the NZF delay introduced new uncertainty not just about the timeline but also about the final shape and ambition of the framework. “At one extreme, the NZF could be adopted ‘as is’ later this year, entering into force in 2028 and coming into effect in 2029,” the report added. “At the other extreme, a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on GHG reductions for several years.” <h3>A battle to build consensus </h3>The motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework last October was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. Despite 80% approval for the NZF from member states voting last April, 34 countries switched positions between April and October to favor the deferment in the face of growing pressure from the US. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. Achieving the IMO target of full decarbonization by or around 2050 with benchmark targets set along the way will require narrowing the wide price gap that exists between fossil fuels and the low- or zero-emission alternatives, which by its very nature will require making fossil fuels more expensive. But the US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. That position, centred around President Donald Trump’s view that a price on carbon emissions was a “global green new scam tax on shipping,” triggered extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. The IMO is now focused on building consensus around some version of the NZF this year before a reconvened MEPC meets in November to finalize the legally binding measures. With the US so fundamentally opposed to any economic measure that penalizes carbon emissions, one of the potential scenarios being suggested by some member states was to remove it completely from the NZF and focus instead on a technical measure. The Global Maritime Forum report warned that any removal of the economic element that is designed to make green technologies cheaper than high-emission alternatives would also remove the likelihood of effective enforcement. "A standalone global fuel standard with no economic elements would likely merely replicate what already exists in the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) mechanism, which requires ships with repeated non-compliance at a certain level to file a corrective action plan,” the report noted. <h3>Geopolitical hurdles ahead for net-zero framework </h3>Eirik Nyhus, director of environment at DNV, has also been looking at possible scenarios that would enable the NZF to be adopted by IMO member states. But he was not convinced that an unchanged measure would make it across the line. “Geopolitics being what they are, there are no reasons to expect the opponents of the NZF to shift their positions or their approach to negotiations by November this year, and therefore repeating the same process with the same proposal under the same circumstances, while hoping for a different outcome is not the best strategy,” Nyhus told a recent online conference. Pushing through the NZF unchanged would require the framework’s supporters to provide diplomatic surety and cover for the countries being pressured by the US. ”This is a high-stakes approach, high-risk, and not very likely to succeed, though there may be parties thinking it’s worth a shot again,” Nyhus said. Also presenting a challenge would be the removal of the economic element in a restructuring of the existing proposal with only the technical element put forward. The technical element covers the fuel intensity regulation that mandates progressively lower greenhouse gas emissions over time. “The opposition to any economic element, whether deferred or delayed, is going to be so strong that only a purely technical regulation really has any chance of going forward under that scenario,” Nyhus said. “If all relevant alternative fuel options are on the table, (a purely technical measure) could contain incentives for a large cross section of countries around the world, and in theory, this could lead to adoption in November this year,” he added. “But all the stars will need to align, and I think it will be a challenge for that to happen.” Another very real scenario would be flag states representing most of the global tonnage rejecting any proposal that is put forward. The NZF can be blocked if one-third of countries representing over 50% of global tonnage formally object during the adoption process. “In all of these cases, the timeline has really been pushed back significantly,” Nyhus said. “Despite it being theoretically possible to have something in place by November 2028, I think the issues to be solved are so thorny that the IMO will need more time, if an outcome can be negotiated at all. “Entering into force of some version of the regulation in 2029 is optimistic and 2030 is more likely, but I would not be shocked to see things slide even further,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Decarbonization experts are running through different scenarios that will enable the International Maritime Organization’s delayed net-zero emissions framework to be formally adopted in November. A best-case scenario will see the IMO framework, postponed for a year at a meeting last October , entering into force in 2028, a year later than planned, and coming into effect in 2029. But a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions for several years. The Global Maritime Forum and maritime classification society DNV looked separately at the different scenarios for net-zero implementation. And while the views of their decarbonization experts differed, there was consensus that whatever measure is ultimately agreed to this November, the IMO’s revised emissions reduction targets set in 2023 will need to be pushed back. A new report from the Global Maritime Forum was released this week and looked at the different plausible outcomes for the net-zero framework (NZF). "Uncertainty at the IMO: Three scenarios and their consequences for shipping’s transition,” was co-authored by Tristan Smith, associate professor at the UCL Energy Institute, and Femke Spiegelenberg, project manager of the Getting to Zero Coalition within the Global Maritime Forum. Three potential scenarios were covered by the report: adopting the NZF unchanged from the measures voted down last October, adopting a single-tier fuel standard with lower compliance costs, and removing the economic elements altogether. The report noted that each scenario would have materially different impacts on timelines, enforcement, investment signals, revenues, low-income countries, and regional policies. “At a minimum, the implementation dates in the text will need to be adjusted to reflect the postponed adoption,” the report said. “More fundamentally, the political dynamics that led to the NZF delay introduced new uncertainty not just about the timeline but also about the final shape and ambition of the framework. “At one extreme, the NZF could be adopted ‘as is’ later this year, entering into force in 2028 and coming into effect in 2029,” the report added. “At the other extreme, a prolonged political deadlock could delay regulatory certainty on GHG reductions for several years.” A battle to build consensus The motion to delay adoption of the IMO’s net-zero framework last October was made at a tense and combative session of its Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) in London. Despite 80% approval for the NZF from member states voting last April, 34 countries switched positions between April and October to favor the deferment in the face of growing pressure from the US. The vote to delay was 57 in favor and 49 against, with 21 abstentions. Achieving the IMO target of full decarbonization by or around 2050 with benchmark targets set along the way will require narrowing the wide price gap that exists between fossil fuels and the low- or zero-emission alternatives, which by its very nature will require making fossil fuels more expensive. But the US believes putting a price on carbon emissions from ships will be passed on to its consumers, increasing costs by 10%. That position, centred around President Donald Trump’s view that a price on carbon emissions was a “global green new scam tax on shipping,” triggered extraordinary threats by the White House that included sanctions, port fees and visa refusals against member states voting to adopt the IMO net-zero framework. The IMO is now focused on building consensus around some version of the NZF this year before a reconvened MEPC meets in November to finalize the legally binding measures. With the US so fundamentally opposed to any economic measure that penalizes carbon emissions, one of the potential scenarios being suggested by some member states was to remove it completely from the NZF and focus instead on a technical measure. The Global Maritime Forum report warned that any removal of the economic element that is designed to make green technologies cheaper than high-emission alternatives would also remove the likelihood of effective enforcement. "A standalone global fuel standard with no economic elements would likely merely replicate what already exists in the Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) mechanism, which requires ships with repeated non-compliance at a certain level to file a corrective action plan,” the report noted. Geopolitical hurdles ahead for net-zero framework Eirik Nyhus, director of environment at DNV, has also been looking at possible scenarios that would enable the NZF to be adopted by IMO member states. But he was not convinced that an unchanged measure would make it across the line. “Geopolitics being what they are, there are no reasons to expect the opponents of the NZF to shift their positions or their approach to negotiations by November this year, and therefore repeating the same process with the same proposal under the same circumstances, while hoping for a different outcome is not the best strategy,” Nyhus told a recent online conference. Pushing through the NZF unchanged would require the framework’s supporters to provide diplomatic surety and cover for the countries being pressured by the US. ”This is a high-stakes approach, high-risk, and not very likely to succeed, though there may be parties thinking it’s worth a shot again,” Nyhus said. Also presenting a challenge would be the removal of the economic element in a restructuring of the existing proposal with only the technical element put forward. The technical element covers the fuel intensity regulation that mandates progressively lower greenhouse gas emissions over time. “The opposition to any economic element, whether deferred or delayed, is going to be so strong that only a purely technical regulation really has any chance of going forward under that scenario,” Nyhus said. “If all relevant alternative fuel options are on the table, (a purely technical measure) could contain incentives for a large cross section of countries around the world, and in theory, this could lead to adoption in November this year,” he added. “But all the stars will need to align, and I think it will be a challenge for that to happen.” Another very real scenario would be flag states representing most of the global tonnage rejecting any proposal that is put forward. The NZF can be blocked if one-third of countries representing over 50% of global tonnage formally object during the adoption process. “In all of these cases, the timeline has really been pushed back significantly,” Nyhus said. “Despite it being theoretically possible to have something in place by November 2028, I think the issues to be solved are so thorny that the IMO will need more time, if an outcome can be negotiated at all. “Entering into force of some version of the regulation in 2029 is optimistic and 2030 is more likely, but I would not be shocked to see things slide even further,” he added. Contact Greg Knowler at  greg.knowler@spglobal.com . 

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Maritime

No clear path to get IMO’s net-zero framework over the line: industry experts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">APMT and TiL will operate the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, respectively, for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts after nullifying the 28-year concession held by CK Hutchison.</div>

APMT and TiL will operate the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, respectively, for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts after nullifying the 28-year concession held by CK Hutchison.

<div class="phx-topic">The terminal subsidiaries of Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) have begun operating the Balboa and Cristobal terminals of the Panama Canal on an interim basis after the Panamanian government late Monday took control of the facilities from the local unit of CK Hutchison Holdings. Maersk’s APM Terminals was given a transitory concession contract for the Balboa terminal on the Pacific side of the canal by the Panama Maritime Authority; MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) was given the same for Cristobal on the Atlantic coast. APMT and TiL will operate the respective terminals for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts. The move to eject CK Hutchison-owned Panama Ports Company came just hours after the government published the Panama Supreme Court’s final ruling nullifying PPC’s 28-year concession, which <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/panama-court-voids-ck-hutchison-canal-terminal-leases-6161145">was announced by the court on Jan. 29.</a>PMA officials said the agency decided to award two separate concessions to assess different operating models and improve overall management of the terminals, while the units of Maersk and MSC were chosen because of the cargo volumes the carriers move through the two ports. APM Terminals Panama has paid $26.1 million for its temporary concession, while TiL has paid $15.8 million, according to concession documents. Last month, the PMA indicated that APMT would be awarded the concession for both Balboa and Cristobal. ”We have sought out operators who handle the cargo,” Alberto Alemán Zubieta, head of the PMA transition team and former administrator of the Panama Canal, told a press briefing Monday. A Maersk spokesperson in Panama said about 75% of the cargo moving through Balboa originates from Maersk. ”The decision to contract an operator associated with the owner of most of that cargo helps stabilize the operation and mitigate the most significant risk during the transition to keeping volumes moving,” the spokesperson said. APMT, meanwhile, said in a customer advisory Tuesday it had initiated a “stabilization phase” at Balboa, but hinted at possible disruption at the terminal as it deploys a new operating system. The company said it is aiming “to safeguard the continuity of Panama’s logistics hub, while a new terminal operating system is deployed and operations are progressively reactivated with the least possible disruption.” It gave no timeframe for the launch of the new system or how long any possible cargo disruption could last. Marliz Bermudez, CEO of APM Terminals Panama, said Tuesday the transition phase at Balboa “requires speed and precision so that the port can progressively resume operations once the system installation is completed, along with other operational, audit, training, and verification tasks.” Maersk said it was “closely monitoring the situation based on information provided by the terminal operator and relevant authorities.” Carriers using both the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, in addition to Maersk and MSC, include Cosco Shipping, CMA CGM, Evergreen, Hapag-Lloyd, and Ocean Network Express. MSC and TiL could not immediately be reached for comment on operations at Cristobal. <h3>More threats from Hutchison </h3>Hong Kong-based Hutchison condemned the takeover of the terminals by the Panamanian government and said the awarding of concessions to APMT and TiL was “unlawful.” A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said during a press briefing in Beijing on Tuesday that China “will firmly protect the company’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests.” “The takeover of the two terminals reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panama state against PPC and the concession contract over the past year,” Hutchison said in a statement. Hutchison’s control of the terminals at either end of the Panama Canal had become the focus of a wider geopolitical spat between the US and China over political influence in the region. Hutchison, which shut down its PPC website following the government takeover, has already threatened legal action against APM Terminals and the Panama government. It also warned that the AMPT takeover at Balboa could harm the relationship between Hutchison and Maersk. While the Panama Supreme Court ruling cannot be reversed, Hutchison’s statement said it’s continuing to consult with legal advisors over launching national and international legal action against Panama and “third parties colluding with them.” It already launched an international arbitration claim in early February against the government over the loss of the terminal concessions.Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

The terminal subsidiaries of Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. (MSC) have begun operating the Balboa and Cristobal terminals of the Panama Canal on an interim basis after the Panamanian government late Monday took control of the facilities from the local unit of CK Hutchison Holdings. Maersk’s APM Terminals was given a transitory concession contract for the Balboa terminal on the Pacific side of the canal by the Panama Maritime Authority; MSC’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) was given the same for Cristobal on the Atlantic coast. APMT and TiL will operate the respective terminals for 18 months while Panama’s government considers how best to award long-term contracts. The move to eject CK Hutchison-owned Panama Ports Company came just hours after the government published the Panama Supreme Court’s final ruling nullifying PPC’s 28-year concession, which was announced by the court on Jan. 29. PMA officials said the agency decided to award two separate concessions to assess different operating models and improve overall management of the terminals, while the units of Maersk and MSC were chosen because of the cargo volumes the carriers move through the two ports. APM Terminals Panama has paid $26.1 million for its temporary concession, while TiL has paid $15.8 million, according to concession documents. Last month, the PMA indicated that APMT would be awarded the concession for both Balboa and Cristobal. ”We have sought out operators who handle the cargo,” Alberto Alemán Zubieta, head of the PMA transition team and former administrator of the Panama Canal, told a press briefing Monday. A Maersk spokesperson in Panama said about 75% of the cargo moving through Balboa originates from Maersk. ”The decision to contract an operator associated with the owner of most of that cargo helps stabilize the operation and mitigate the most significant risk during the transition to keeping volumes moving,” the spokesperson said. APMT, meanwhile, said in a customer advisory Tuesday it had initiated a “stabilization phase” at Balboa, but hinted at possible disruption at the terminal as it deploys a new operating system. The company said it is aiming “to safeguard the continuity of Panama’s logistics hub, while a new terminal operating system is deployed and operations are progressively reactivated with the least possible disruption.” It gave no timeframe for the launch of the new system or how long any possible cargo disruption could last. Marliz Bermudez, CEO of APM Terminals Panama, said Tuesday the transition phase at Balboa “requires speed and precision so that the port can progressively resume operations once the system installation is completed, along with other operational, audit, training, and verification tasks.” Maersk said it was “closely monitoring the situation based on information provided by the terminal operator and relevant authorities.” Carriers using both the Balboa and Cristobal terminals, in addition to Maersk and MSC, include Cosco Shipping, CMA CGM, Evergreen, Hapag-Lloyd, and Ocean Network Express. MSC and TiL could not immediately be reached for comment on operations at Cristobal. More threats from Hutchison Hong Kong-based Hutchison condemned the takeover of the terminals by the Panamanian government and said the awarding of concessions to APMT and TiL was “unlawful.” A spokesperson for China’s Foreign Ministry said during a press briefing in Beijing on Tuesday that China “will firmly protect the company’s legitimate and lawful rights and interests.” “The takeover of the two terminals reflects the culmination of a campaign by the Panama state against PPC and the concession contract over the past year,” Hutchison said in a statement. Hutchison’s control of the terminals at either end of the Panama Canal had become the focus of a wider geopolitical spat between the US and China over political influence in the region. Hutchison, which shut down its PPC website following the government takeover, has already threatened legal action against APM Terminals and the Panama government. It also warned that the AMPT takeover at Balboa could harm the relationship between Hutchison and Maersk. While the Panama Supreme Court ruling cannot be reversed, Hutchison’s statement said it’s continuing to consult with legal advisors over launching national and international legal action against Panama and “third parties colluding with them.” It already launched an international arbitration claim in early February against the government over the loss of the terminal concessions. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

Port News

Marine terminals

International ports

Container Shipping News

Maersk, MSC units begin interim management of Panama Canal terminals

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Hapag-Lloyd said it wants to integrate Zim into the alliance with Maersk, but adding new ports and overlapping coverage means changes to services. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd said it wants to integrate Zim into the alliance with Maersk, but adding new ports and overlapping coverage means changes to services.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services raises questions of how much of Zim’s express, port-direct services will survive under Gemini Cooperation’s transshipment model and to what extent the acquisition will force further changes in trans-Pacific networks, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime AnalysisIntegrating Zim’s services into the Gemini network makes more sense than operating Zim as a separate product, Sea-Intelligence said in a report Sunday. Even though Zim offers a premium product based on its transit times and direct service, Sea-Intelligence said a premium, standalone service confuses the messaging for Gemini customers “Operating premium direct strings outside the alliance effectively positions Hapag-Lloyd in competition with its own shared hub-and-spoke infrastructure, which could potentially draw high-yield cargo away from Gemini’s core network.” Sea-Intelligence said. Adding Zim’s current trans-Pacific services would increase Gemini’s port coverage by 28%, Sea-Intelligence said. In particular, Zim’s network would give Gemini more coverage between origin ports in southeast China, South Korea, and Taiwan to US East Coast ports. Yet offering those additional port calls will introduce more complexity into Gemini’s network, Sea-Intelligence said. Offering the same port coverage to the Gemini network will require “careful product design to avoid undermining customer expectations.”Speaking during a briefing last week after the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">$4.2 billion acquisition of Zim was announced</a>, Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said the approximately 100 vessels controlled by Zim will eventually be integrated into services that Hapag-Lloyd offers alongside Maersk under the Gemini banner. He added that the additional capacity could help Gemini gain market share in certain trade lanes. “It’s very likely to assume that indeed, some of the tonnage that Zim deploys on the east-west trades would also phase into Gemini,” Habben Jansen said. “We think that’s actually a good thing that will help Gemini gain a little bit of scale that will help us to bring unit cost further down.” <h3>‘Structural challenge’ for Gemini</h3>Integrating Zim’s current network would also mean Gemini offering a second Asia service to the Port of Baltimore and providing service to Boston. Sea-Intelligence said that while some services with port overlap could be consolidated, servicing smaller ports might require standalone services that won’t affect Gemini’s reliability. “If this market reach is integrated, Gemini faces a structural challenge: servicing these secondary gateways via transshipment hubs can add transit time on the ocean leg, and it may dilute the faster transit times some legacy Zim customers currently value,” Sea-Intelligence said. Along with Gemini’s network, the acquisition of Zim has the potential to reshape other vessel-sharing arrangements, Sea-Intelligence said. For the past two years, Hapag-Lloyd has offered a jointly-operated Asia-US East Coast service with Wan Hai Lines, the AA7. But Sea-Intelligence said the AA7’s large overlap with existing Zim services suggests “Hapag-Lloyd could exit this joint operation over time.” Zim has its own vessel-sharing agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for five services between Asia and the US East and Gulf coasts. Zim and MSC each operate two of the services, while the fifth service is jointly operated. While it would take between six months and a year to dissolve the joint agreement, Sea-Intelligence said the end of the agreement would reduce MSC’s port coverage on Asia-to-US East Coast services by nearly one-third. Sea-Intelligence said it’s likely that MSC will launch a new US East Coast anchor service to compensate for the potential exit of Zim. “If MSC opts not to launch a replacement service, they would be ceding a defined strategic advantage to the potentially expanded Gemini network,” Sea-Intelligence said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto: michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Hapag-Lloyd’s acquisition of Zim Integrated Shipping Services raises questions of how much of Zim’s express, port-direct services will survive under Gemini Cooperation’s transshipment model and to what extent the acquisition will force further changes in trans-Pacific networks, according to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis Integrating Zim’s services into the Gemini network makes more sense than operating Zim as a separate product, Sea-Intelligence said in a report Sunday. Even though Zim offers a premium product based on its transit times and direct service, Sea-Intelligence said a premium, standalone service confuses the messaging for Gemini customers “Operating premium direct strings outside the alliance effectively positions Hapag-Lloyd in competition with its own shared hub-and-spoke infrastructure, which could potentially draw high-yield cargo away from Gemini’s core network.” Sea-Intelligence said. Adding Zim’s current trans-Pacific services would increase Gemini’s port coverage by 28%, Sea-Intelligence said. In particular, Zim’s network would give Gemini more coverage between origin ports in southeast China, South Korea, and Taiwan to US East Coast ports. Yet offering those additional port calls will introduce more complexity into Gemini’s network, Sea-Intelligence said. Offering the same port coverage to the Gemini network will require “careful product design to avoid undermining customer expectations.” Speaking during a briefing last week after the $4.2 billion acquisition of Zim was announced , Hapag-Lloyd Chief Executive Rolf Habben Jansen said the approximately 100 vessels controlled by Zim will eventually be integrated into services that Hapag-Lloyd offers alongside Maersk under the Gemini banner. He added that the additional capacity could help Gemini gain market share in certain trade lanes. “It’s very likely to assume that indeed, some of the tonnage that Zim deploys on the east-west trades would also phase into Gemini,” Habben Jansen said. “We think that’s actually a good thing that will help Gemini gain a little bit of scale that will help us to bring unit cost further down.” ‘Structural challenge’ for Gemini Integrating Zim’s current network would also mean Gemini offering a second Asia service to the Port of Baltimore and providing service to Boston. Sea-Intelligence said that while some services with port overlap could be consolidated, servicing smaller ports might require standalone services that won’t affect Gemini’s reliability. “If this market reach is integrated, Gemini faces a structural challenge: servicing these secondary gateways via transshipment hubs can add transit time on the ocean leg, and it may dilute the faster transit times some legacy Zim customers currently value,” Sea-Intelligence said. Along with Gemini’s network, the acquisition of Zim has the potential to reshape other vessel-sharing arrangements, Sea-Intelligence said. For the past two years, Hapag-Lloyd has offered a jointly-operated Asia-US East Coast service with Wan Hai Lines, the AA7. But Sea-Intelligence said the AA7’s large overlap with existing Zim services suggests “Hapag-Lloyd could exit this joint operation over time.” Zim has its own vessel-sharing agreement with Mediterranean Shipping Co. for five services between Asia and the US East and Gulf coasts. Zim and MSC each operate two of the services, while the fifth service is jointly operated. While it would take between six months and a year to dissolve the joint agreement, Sea-Intelligence said the end of the agreement would reduce MSC’s port coverage on Asia-to-US East Coast services by nearly one-third. Sea-Intelligence said it’s likely that MSC will launch a new US East Coast anchor service to compensate for the potential exit of Zim. “If MSC opts not to launch a replacement service, they would be ceding a defined strategic advantage to the potentially expanded Gemini network,” Sea-Intelligence said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Zim acquisition sets up network changes for Gemini: Sea-Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The $4.2 billion acquisition announced last week does nothing to alter the market’s weak fundamentals, notably soft demand and vessel oversupply, writes analyst John McCauley.</div>

The $4.2 billion acquisition announced last week does nothing to alter the market’s weak fundamentals, notably soft demand and vessel oversupply, writes analyst John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">The ink has barely dried on the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-bolsters-fleet-with-42-billion-deal-to-acquire-zim-6170540">Hapag-Lloyd tie up with Zim Integrated Shipping Services</a> and there is a view that the enlargement of the container shipping oligopoly will have some far-reaching effect and potentially stem the tide of red ink in carriers’ results. Indeed, in the longer term, this should bring about significant cost savings for the combined HL/Zim entity through procurement and agent network rationalization. However, adding another name or moving one slot higher in the rankings of the biggest carriers will not change the underlying issues facing the industry. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6174595_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Let’s start with demand. Global container freight demand is up and forecast to maintain that performance, which is good overall. However, prospects for the two key trade lanes — the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe — are poor. Trans-Pacific is dire, and without any structural change in the trade, I can see us heading back to $500 rates sooner rather than later. Asia-Europe is benefiting from the China and China + shift to non-US markets, but the fundamentals in European economies indicate this demand surge will be short-lived. The biggest problem is oversupply. With over 30% of the existing global fleet on order, oversupply is a self-inflicted wound. Surely, common sense prevailed in certain boardrooms to foresee the need to better deploy the extraordinary cash piles most carriers possess (although the piles are starting to shrink). In some cases, we can see that using cash flow to mop up charter tonnage in key segments, particularly Panamax and post-Panamax, was a smart move to increase fleet flexibility, but also to keep charter rates high and potentially push out bottom feeders as rates drop and margins erode. However — and the following comments assume there will be no full reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal — the continued desire to add new tonnage alongside the bloated order book seems nonsensical. This will leave very few options for carriers should demand continue to soften. Bear in mind that even without Red Sea resumption, schedule slippages, blank sailings and other current tactics will seem like trying to ride a wakeboard in a tsunami. Anchoring up will solve some immediate supply problems, but only layups will actually take tonnage out of service for an extensive period. Those who remember 2009 and the Eastern Anchorage in Singapore with multiple vessels moored together will get the picture. The compounding oversupply issue is that the trades benefiting from increased demand are not predominantly the trades that suit new tonnage coming out of the shipyards. If a magic wand could be waved, you would order 5,000- and 8,000-TEU ships, and not any bigger. Ordering 14,000-TEU-plus, even with the best intentions of dual-fuel to help the planet, will only exacerbate oversupply. <h3>Strong argument for scrapping </h3>The other supply reduction strategy is scrapping. There is a strong argument for scrapping, particularly older vessels that will come up against regulatory requirements that will prove costlier to implement than the return the vessels will derive. Granted, many will have reached their full depreciation, so are essentially running on operating expenses only. The temptation will be to keep them going, particularly those in the desirable 5,000- to 8,000-TEU range. Two other factors suggest large-scale scrapping is unlikely. The first is that while scrap yards have capacity, they need reservations well in advance given that most vessels in line for scrapping are usually part of a homogeneous order for multiple vessels rather than one-offs. Second, scrapping regulations have become tighter, which will make it more costly to scrap. Scrap prices are also weak, although container vessel scrap prices are at a small premium above dry and wet vessels. Even the E-class Maersk vessels and their (near) equivalents that are at or near 20 years old would still seem a bizarre candidate for scrapping So where does all that leave carriers? Some will hope that the US recovers, and global trade rebalances and tactical supply constraints will suffice. Combined with that will be the knowledge that carriers have about three years of free cash flow cover to ride out the downturn. Others will review their order book and see how they can delay or even withdraw from purchase and delivery. However, the favorable financing terms on offer will make this unlikely. Most will hope a smaller competitor or two will go bust, but that would not stem the vessel glut. And some will look at their playbook and go the acquisition route. But hope is never a good strategy, and a combination of layups and scrapping seems the only viable solution. So the question for this (failed) oligopolistic market is: “Who blinks first?” John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>. </div>

The ink has barely dried on the Hapag-Lloyd tie up with Zim Integrated Shipping Services and there is a view that the enlargement of the container shipping oligopoly will have some far-reaching effect and potentially stem the tide of red ink in carriers’ results. Indeed, in the longer term, this should bring about significant cost savings for the combined HL/Zim entity through procurement and agent network rationalization. However, adding another name or moving one slot higher in the rankings of the biggest carriers will not change the underlying issues facing the industry. Let’s start with demand. Global container freight demand is up and forecast to maintain that performance, which is good overall. However, prospects for the two key trade lanes — the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe — are poor. Trans-Pacific is dire, and without any structural change in the trade, I can see us heading back to $500 rates sooner rather than later. Asia-Europe is benefiting from the China and China + shift to non-US markets, but the fundamentals in European economies indicate this demand surge will be short-lived. The biggest problem is oversupply. With over 30% of the existing global fleet on order, oversupply is a self-inflicted wound. Surely, common sense prevailed in certain boardrooms to foresee the need to better deploy the extraordinary cash piles most carriers possess (although the piles are starting to shrink). In some cases, we can see that using cash flow to mop up charter tonnage in key segments, particularly Panamax and post-Panamax, was a smart move to increase fleet flexibility, but also to keep charter rates high and potentially push out bottom feeders as rates drop and margins erode. However — and the following comments assume there will be no full reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal — the continued desire to add new tonnage alongside the bloated order book seems nonsensical. This will leave very few options for carriers should demand continue to soften. Bear in mind that even without Red Sea resumption, schedule slippages, blank sailings and other current tactics will seem like trying to ride a wakeboard in a tsunami. Anchoring up will solve some immediate supply problems, but only layups will actually take tonnage out of service for an extensive period. Those who remember 2009 and the Eastern Anchorage in Singapore with multiple vessels moored together will get the picture. The compounding oversupply issue is that the trades benefiting from increased demand are not predominantly the trades that suit new tonnage coming out of the shipyards. If a magic wand could be waved, you would order 5,000- and 8,000-TEU ships, and not any bigger. Ordering 14,000-TEU-plus, even with the best intentions of dual-fuel to help the planet, will only exacerbate oversupply. Strong argument for scrapping The other supply reduction strategy is scrapping. There is a strong argument for scrapping, particularly older vessels that will come up against regulatory requirements that will prove costlier to implement than the return the vessels will derive. Granted, many will have reached their full depreciation, so are essentially running on operating expenses only. The temptation will be to keep them going, particularly those in the desirable 5,000- to 8,000-TEU range. Two other factors suggest large-scale scrapping is unlikely. The first is that while scrap yards have capacity, they need reservations well in advance given that most vessels in line for scrapping are usually part of a homogeneous order for multiple vessels rather than one-offs. Second, scrapping regulations have become tighter, which will make it more costly to scrap. Scrap prices are also weak, although container vessel scrap prices are at a small premium above dry and wet vessels. Even the E-class Maersk vessels and their (near) equivalents that are at or near 20 years old would still seem a bizarre candidate for scrapping So where does all that leave carriers? Some will hope that the US recovers, and global trade rebalances and tactical supply constraints will suffice. Combined with that will be the knowledge that carriers have about three years of free cash flow cover to ride out the downturn. Others will review their order book and see how they can delay or even withdraw from purchase and delivery. However, the favorable financing terms on offer will make this unlikely. Most will hope a smaller competitor or two will go bust, but that would not stem the vessel glut. And some will look at their playbook and go the acquisition route. But hope is never a good strategy, and a combination of layups and scrapping seems the only viable solution. So the question for this (failed) oligopolistic market is: “Who blinks first?” John McCauley, formerly a vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Hapag-Lloyd’s deal for Zim won’t fix challenges facing container shipping

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A record number of wind farm installations in 2025 has set the tone for accelerated year-over-year demand growth for wind components, according to the Global Wind Energy Council. </div>

A record number of wind farm installations in 2025 has set the tone for accelerated year-over-year demand growth for wind components, according to the Global Wind Energy Council.

<div class="phx-topic">Global wind capacity is forecast to exceed 2 terawatts by 2030, building on a record year for new wind energy installations in 2025, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Wind farm installations provide regular cargo for the breakbulk and project cargo industry. In its latest forecast, GWEC raised its full-year global wind installation forecast for last year by 8.8% to 150 gigawatts. Ben Backwell, GWEC CEO, said in a statement that is up from 94 GW just four years ago, “driven largely by Asia’s fast-growing economies.” GWEC is an international trade association for the wind power industry. China was the runaway leader, with total installation thought to exceed 100 GW in 2025. By 2030, Asia-Pacific countries, excluding China, will account for 12% of installations, said GWEC. India set a record of 6.3 GW installed in 2025, while Europe installed 22.5 GW, a year-over-year increase of 5 GW. The US installed more than 7 GW. Wind component shipper and manufacturer Siemens Gamesa said in a year-end report that its installations now totaled 119 GWs onshore consisting of more than 61,000 turbines, and 31 GW offshore consisting of more than 5,100 turbines. A spokesperson for multipurpose and heavy-lift vessel operator Chipolbrok told the Journal of Commerce the company is seeing increasing demand for shipping of complete wind turbines. However, demand is highly dependent on the routes and destinations that they call. For example, in parts of Europe, there is an investment backlog for renewables projects as economic uncertainty is making investors jittery. “This is currently leading to a decline in demand for offshore installations,” Chipolbrok said. <h3>Europe still a stronghold for wind </h3>Siemens Gamesa aims to install about 500 offshore turbines per year in fiscal 2026 and 2027. Offshore remains a promising market, with the EU and UK as a stronghold for the company with 37 GW already installed and a high commitment to renewables given the EU’s 300-GW target by 2050. Colin Charnock, group CEO of freight forwarder Trans Global Projects (TGP), told the Journal of Commerce TGP is “continuing to strengthen its capability for the power sector.” That includes the opening of TGP Finland by the third quarter of 2026, which will enhance the forwarder’s presence in a region with significant activity in grid expansion, offshore wind and heavy industrial power projects. “This development supports our long‑term plan to be positioned close to strategic corridors where large‑scale energy projects are planned or underway,” Charnock said. Asian markets, especially Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, also bring opportunities, Siemens Gamesa said, with those countries combined having committed to build 100 GW of offshore wind capacity between now and 2040. The company noted that excluding China, the global onshore market is expected to grow from about 40 to 45 GW today to 65 GW in 2030. <h3>Turbine orders fell in 2025 </h3>Still, S&amp;P Global Energy’s Wind Turbine Order Tracker published earlier this month reported a contraction in global wind turbine orders last year, driven by a pullback in key markets. Firm global wind turbine orders last year totaled approximately 140 GW, a 20% decline from 2024. Another 60 GW of “non-firm orders” brings the total to 200 GW. Hwei Ling Lee, associate analyst for clean energy technologies and supply chains at S&amp;P Global Energy, explained that S&amp;P Global’s dataset reports volumes of wind turbine orders secured, whereas GWEC reports actual installations of wind capacity. “Since turbines are typically installed 12 to 18 months after an order is placed, orders for wind turbines secured in 2025 will mostly be installed in 2026 and 2027,” Lee said. “This makes the order data a more forward-looking view of market activity.” The drop in orders in 2025 could translate into a slower installation rate in 2026, but “it may not be as pronounced as the decline in orders might suggest,” Lee added. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Contact Felicity Landon on <a href="mailto:felicity@felicitylandon.com">felicity@felicitylandon.com</a>. </div>

Global wind capacity is forecast to exceed 2 terawatts by 2030, building on a record year for new wind energy installations in 2025, according to the Global Wind Energy Council (GWEC). Wind farm installations provide regular cargo for the breakbulk and project cargo industry. In its latest forecast, GWEC raised its full-year global wind installation forecast for last year by 8.8% to 150 gigawatts. Ben Backwell, GWEC CEO, said in a statement that is up from 94 GW just four years ago, “driven largely by Asia’s fast-growing economies.” GWEC is an international trade association for the wind power industry. China was the runaway leader, with total installation thought to exceed 100 GW in 2025. By 2030, Asia-Pacific countries, excluding China, will account for 12% of installations, said GWEC. India set a record of 6.3 GW installed in 2025, while Europe installed 22.5 GW, a year-over-year increase of 5 GW. The US installed more than 7 GW. Wind component shipper and manufacturer Siemens Gamesa said in a year-end report that its installations now totaled 119 GWs onshore consisting of more than 61,000 turbines, and 31 GW offshore consisting of more than 5,100 turbines. A spokesperson for multipurpose and heavy-lift vessel operator Chipolbrok told the Journal of Commerce the company is seeing increasing demand for shipping of complete wind turbines. However, demand is highly dependent on the routes and destinations that they call. For example, in parts of Europe, there is an investment backlog for renewables projects as economic uncertainty is making investors jittery. “This is currently leading to a decline in demand for offshore installations,” Chipolbrok said. Europe still a stronghold for wind Siemens Gamesa aims to install about 500 offshore turbines per year in fiscal 2026 and 2027. Offshore remains a promising market, with the EU and UK as a stronghold for the company with 37 GW already installed and a high commitment to renewables given the EU’s 300-GW target by 2050. Colin Charnock, group CEO of freight forwarder Trans Global Projects (TGP), told the Journal of Commerce TGP is “continuing to strengthen its capability for the power sector.” That includes the opening of TGP Finland by the third quarter of 2026, which will enhance the forwarder’s presence in a region with significant activity in grid expansion, offshore wind and heavy industrial power projects. “This development supports our long‑term plan to be positioned close to strategic corridors where large‑scale energy projects are planned or underway,” Charnock said. Asian markets, especially Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, also bring opportunities, Siemens Gamesa said, with those countries combined having committed to build 100 GW of offshore wind capacity between now and 2040. The company noted that excluding China, the global onshore market is expected to grow from about 40 to 45 GW today to 65 GW in 2030. Turbine orders fell in 2025 Still, S&P Global Energy’s Wind Turbine Order Tracker published earlier this month reported a contraction in global wind turbine orders last year, driven by a pullback in key markets. Firm global wind turbine orders last year totaled approximately 140 GW, a 20% decline from 2024. Another 60 GW of “non-firm orders” brings the total to 200 GW. Hwei Ling Lee, associate analyst for clean energy technologies and supply chains at S&P Global Energy, explained that S&P Global’s dataset reports volumes of wind turbine orders secured, whereas GWEC reports actual installations of wind capacity. “Since turbines are typically installed 12 to 18 months after an order is placed, orders for wind turbines secured in 2025 will mostly be installed in 2026 and 2027,” Lee said. “This makes the order data a more forward-looking view of market activity.” The drop in orders in 2025 could translate into a slower installation rate in 2026, but “it may not be as pronounced as the decline in orders might suggest,” Lee added. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Contact Felicity Landon on felicity@felicitylandon.com .

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Asia to dominate global wind cargo market through end of the decade

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Use code 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

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

Truckload

Truck brokers

Trucking labor

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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 GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $500 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW995 and save $500 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM26

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk26

The Journal of Commerce’s trucking news and analysis encompasses full truckload, less-than-truckload (LTL), private fleet trucking, refrigerated trucking, regulation, drayage, and transloading. Reporting centers on pricing, volume demand, capacity, labor, regulation, and service levels in US and Canadian trucking networks.

Flatbed

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

Rail News

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

No clear path to get IMO’s net-zero framework over the line: industry experts

Maersk, MSC units begin interim management of Panama Canal terminals

Zim acquisition sets up network changes for Gemini: Sea-Intelligence