<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Proofreading a contract is a critical part of contractual relationships. You can’t expect the judicial system to overlook your errors or to correct them. </div>

Proofreading a contract is a critical part of contractual relationships. You can’t expect the judicial system to overlook your errors or to correct them.

<div>Q: We’re a freight bill auditing company. One of our clients has a contract with a carrier in which a typographical error apparently was made, and I’m looking for advice on how to interpret the contract.The carrier’s tariff has a provision stating that a shipment is to be considered a capacity load under the following circumstances: when the shipment occupies more than 23 linear feet in the trailer or when its weight is under 10,000 pounds and it occupies more than 20 linear feet. I think it’s pretty clear the carrier intended to incorporate this provision in the contract, but...

Q: We’re a freight bill auditing company. One of our clients has a contract with a carrier in which a typographical error apparently was made, and I’m looking for advice on how to interpret the contract. The carrier’s tariff has a provision stating that a shipment is to be considered a capacity load under the following circumstances: when the shipment occupies more than 23 linear feet in the trailer or when its weight is under 10,000 pounds and it occupies more than 20 linear feet. I think it’s pretty clear the carrier intended to incorporate this provision in the contract, but in the course of preparing the contract, it was done imperfectly. The contract reads the same as the tariff, except that the word “or” in the tariff was replaced in the contract with “and.” Thus, the contract defines a capacity load as one that occupies more than 23 linear feet and weighs less than 10,000 pounds and occupies more than 20 linear feet. If you read this literally, the references to the number of linear feet are redundant and senseless, so that doesn’t work out well. But I’m not sure whether it’s proper to go back to the tariff language that was evidently intended to apply. In other words, what’s the legally correct way to apply this provision of the contract? A: What a difference one little word can make! I agree with you that this almost certainly was a typographical error in transcription, but that’s an assumption no court could supportably make. The rule of law is that a contract is considered legally complete within its own borders. That is, the contract must be interpreted based solely on what it contains and not the contents of any other document, whether related or not. That means, in this context, the contract language you’ve quoted must be construed as written, which is admittedly pretty difficult given the redundancy about linear-foot limitations you mentioned. I’m not sure how a court would deal with that redundancy, but I’m reasonably sure of what it wouldn’t do, and that’s to interpret the subject contract wording the same as it would the slightly — but significantly — different language of the carrier’s tariff. The tariff clearly means to apply the capacity-load definition to two different situations: any load, irrespective of weight, that exceeds 23 linear feet; and any other load weighing under 10,000 pounds that exceeds a mere 20 linear feet. That construction is impossible to apply to the contract, which means the first of the two tariff situations I described won’t qualify as a capacity load under the contract unless it also weighs under 10,000 pounds. If it weighs 10,000 pounds or more, it won’t be properly deemed to fit the contractual definition. That’s the real-world significance of that seemingly inconsequential substitution of one grammatical conjunction for another in the contract. To be sure, such a view leaves the redundant references to a shipment’s linear footage — one to 23, and another to 20 — unresolved, which violates another cardinal rule of contractual interpretation: that every word and phrase must be given meaning. But I don’t see any way of avoiding this within the confines of the contractual language. It’s obvious that any shipment exceeding 23 linear feet also exceeds 20, rendering the latter reference meaningless. But I’m simply unable to come up with any alternative construction of what the contract says, nor, I think, could a court. The moral of this rather sad tale should be fairly clear: Proofreading the contract is a critical part of contractual relationships. You can’t expect the judicial system to overlook your errors in that regard or to correct them. The words with which you memorialize your agreements are deemed in law to mean precisely what they say, and will be so applied by the courts even if they don’t accurately reflect what you intended to agree. And a court is legally prohibited from harking back to some other document from which the terms of your agreement may have been meant to be extracted to “fix” a “typographical error” in transcribing the language. It should be pretty clear why this rule is a necessary part of the law, considering what one party considers to be a “typo” may to the other be an accurate representation of the parties’ agreement. No court is prepared to find itself placed in the middle of this kind of dispute, which in any case is not the role of the courts. Consultant, author and educator Colin Barrett is president of Barrett Transportation Consultants. Send your questions to him at 5201 Whippoorwill Lane, Johns Island, S.C. 29455; phone, 843-559-1277; e-mail, BarrettTrn@aol.com . Contact him to order the most recent 351-page compiled edition of past Q&A columns, published in 2010.

Trucking News

How one typo can alter a contract's meaning

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The just-concluded legislative session also puts aside emergency funding for the Port of Portland that is generated via lottery sales.</div>

The just-concluded legislative session also puts aside emergency funding for the Port of Portland that is generated via lottery sales.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Oregon’s lawmakers voted to help finance dredging for the development of a new container terminal at the Port of Coos Bay — but only if more federal backing is secured. Legislators also set aside emergency funding that the Port of Portland sought to stave off its closure.The Oregon Legislature’s 2025 session, which ended in late June, included passage of a two-year spending bill that will allow the state to issue up to $100 million in bonds to fund channel deepening and widening for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/proposed-oregon-container-terminal-among-projects-winning-dot-grants-5764924">the proposed Pacific Coast Intermodal Port (PCIP)</a> container terminal at Coos Bay. The spending bill now awaits Governor Tina Kotek’s signature. The terminal, a joint project of the port and logistics infrastructure developer NorthPoint Development, is designed to handle over 1 million TEUs per year, chiefly serving inland rail markets. The project calls for dredging eight miles of the Coos Bay navigation channel to 45 feet from its current depth of 37 feet, along with widening it from 300 feet to 450 feet. That will allow the PCIP to handle post-Panamax ships up to 13,000 TEUs. The Port of Coos Bay has targeted a 2030 opening for the project. The channel modifications are expected to cost a total of $560 million, according to the Port of Coos Bay. The state can only issue the bonds once the PCIP has received final permitting approval, and the project’s backers have secured $1 billion in railroad improvement financing from the Department of Transportation. The PCIP will require raising tunnel clearances and other improvements on about 120 miles of track that will connect the port to Union Pacific’s rail network. Coos Bay has secured $30 million in various grants toward improving the rail tracks. In addition, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/proposed-oregon-container-terminal-among-projects-winning-dot-grants-5764924">Coos Bay also received a $25 million grant</a> in 2024 toward the design of the PCIP, which is expected to cost over $2 billion. <h3>Lottery to help fund Portland </h3>A separate bill passed at the end of the 2025 session includes a “Container Port Improvement Fund” that will include $20 million funded through lottery ticket sales. Gov. Kotek had sought <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/oregon-governor-proposes-40-million-to-keep-portland-container-service-alive-5225215">$40 million for the Port of Portland</a> last year after it revealed larger-than-expected financial losses, prompting the port to consider closing its container terminal. The port struck a deal in December for its current stevedore to fully takeover the terminal, a requirement for receiving the grant funding. The bill also sets aside $15 million in state funds for navigation improvements on the Columbia River. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Oregon’s lawmakers voted to help finance dredging for the development of a new container terminal at the Port of Coos Bay — but only if more federal backing is secured. Legislators also set aside emergency funding that the Port of Portland sought to stave off its closure. The Oregon Legislature’s 2025 session, which ended in late June, included passage of a two-year spending bill that will allow the state to issue up to $100 million in bonds to fund channel deepening and widening for the proposed Pacific Coast Intermodal Port (PCIP) container terminal at Coos Bay. The spending bill now awaits Governor Tina Kotek’s signature. The terminal, a joint project of the port and logistics infrastructure developer NorthPoint Development, is designed to handle over 1 million TEUs per year, chiefly serving inland rail markets. The project calls for dredging eight miles of the Coos Bay navigation channel to 45 feet from its current depth of 37 feet, along with widening it from 300 feet to 450 feet. That will allow the PCIP to handle post-Panamax ships up to 13,000 TEUs. The Port of Coos Bay has targeted a 2030 opening for the project. The channel modifications are expected to cost a total of $560 million, according to the Port of Coos Bay. The state can only issue the bonds once the PCIP has received final permitting approval, and the project’s backers have secured $1 billion in railroad improvement financing from the Department of Transportation. The PCIP will require raising tunnel clearances and other improvements on about 120 miles of track that will connect the port to Union Pacific’s rail network. Coos Bay has secured $30 million in various grants toward improving the rail tracks. In addition, Coos Bay also received a $25 million grant in 2024 toward the design of the PCIP, which is expected to cost over $2 billion. Lottery to help fund Portland A separate bill passed at the end of the 2025 session includes a “Container Port Improvement Fund” that will include $20 million funded through lottery ticket sales. Gov. Kotek had sought $40 million for the Port of Portland last year after it revealed larger-than-expected financial losses, prompting the port to consider closing its container terminal. The port struck a deal in December for its current stevedore to fully takeover the terminal, a requirement for receiving the grant funding. The bill also sets aside $15 million in state funds for navigation improvements on the Columbia River. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Marine terminals

North American ports

Oregon earmarks funds for proposed Coos Bay terminal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A plan to tax vehicle carriers $14 per net ton for each US port call will raise consumer costs and reduce the number of ports served, shipping executives warned Monday. </div>

A plan to tax vehicle carriers $14 per net ton for each US port call will raise consumer costs and reduce the number of ports served, shipping executives warned Monday.

<div class="phx-topic">Shipping executives and vehicle and heavy industry manufacturers say a US plan to tax foreign-built, roll-on, roll-off (ro/ro) ships exceeds statutory powers and will hurt the nation’s consumers, ports and manufacturers. The US Trade Representative (USTR) plan would begin Oct. 14 and levy a fee of $14 per net ton on foreign-built vehicle carriers, including ro/ro vessels, as part of a larger effort to blunt China’s shipbuilding dominance. The vehicle carrier industry and its customers successfully <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/car-carrier-operators-face-changes-to-ustr-voyage-fee-plans-6022206">lobbied to blunt USTR’s original tax</a> plan calling for ro/ro operators to be levied $150 per car equivalent. “USTR has gone far beyond its statutory authority under section 301. USTR has offered no rationale for taking action against all vehicle carrier or ro/ro vessels without regard to the nationality of the owner/operator or the origin of the ships that dock in US ports,” Lasse Kristoffersen, president and CEO of Wallenius Wilhelmsen, the world’s biggest car carrier operator, wrote in public comments released Monday. Ro/ro operators would face a fee of about $361,000 per US port call based on an average-sized vehicle carrier, which would be passed on to customers wherever possible, said Kristoffersen. Carriers will reduce the number of US port calls to mitigate the tax, he said, estimating that Wallenius Wilhelmsen would rack up a $137 million annual bill if it mirrored its service network post-tax. Echoing claims that the USTR plan overreaches legally, the heavy industry’s top groups warned that the fees would hit small and medium-sized US manufacturers harder than their larger peers. The reduction in US port calls by carriers to reduce their tax bill would also make it harder for exporters to serve international markets, representatives of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and Associated Equipment Distributors wrote in a joint letter. The South Korean government suggested that the tax on ro/ro vessels should be capped at a single port call per service, much like how the tonnage tax for <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/revised-china-tonnage-tax-less-disruptive-still-costly-6005402">container ships was amended</a> from the original draft. “Therefore, the Korean government requests that the same limitation — a maximum of five port entry fees charges per vessel per year [for container ships] — be applied to vehicle carriers as well,” wrote the ministries of trade, industry and energy, and oceans and fisheries, in a joint letter. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Shipping executives and vehicle and heavy industry manufacturers say a US plan to tax foreign-built, roll-on, roll-off (ro/ro) ships exceeds statutory powers and will hurt the nation’s consumers, ports and manufacturers. The US Trade Representative (USTR) plan would begin Oct. 14 and levy a fee of $14 per net ton on foreign-built vehicle carriers, including ro/ro vessels, as part of a larger effort to blunt China’s shipbuilding dominance. The vehicle carrier industry and its customers successfully lobbied to blunt USTR’s original tax plan calling for ro/ro operators to be levied $150 per car equivalent. “USTR has gone far beyond its statutory authority under section 301. USTR has offered no rationale for taking action against all vehicle carrier or ro/ro vessels without regard to the nationality of the owner/operator or the origin of the ships that dock in US ports,” Lasse Kristoffersen, president and CEO of Wallenius Wilhelmsen, the world’s biggest car carrier operator, wrote in public comments released Monday. Ro/ro operators would face a fee of about $361,000 per US port call based on an average-sized vehicle carrier, which would be passed on to customers wherever possible, said Kristoffersen. Carriers will reduce the number of US port calls to mitigate the tax, he said, estimating that Wallenius Wilhelmsen would rack up a $137 million annual bill if it mirrored its service network post-tax. Echoing claims that the USTR plan overreaches legally, the heavy industry’s top groups warned that the fees would hit small and medium-sized US manufacturers harder than their larger peers. The reduction in US port calls by carriers to reduce their tax bill would also make it harder for exporters to serve international markets, representatives of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers and Associated Equipment Distributors wrote in a joint letter. The South Korean government suggested that the tax on ro/ro vessels should be capped at a single port call per service, much like how the tonnage tax for container ships was amended from the original draft. “Therefore, the Korean government requests that the same limitation — a maximum of five port entry fees charges per vessel per year [for container ships] — be applied to vehicle carriers as well,” wrote the ministries of trade, industry and energy, and oceans and fisheries, in a joint letter. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Ro/ro cargo

USTR plan to tax ro/ro ships exceeds statutory authority: stakeholders

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Instead of its 24,000-TEU ships making direct calls at West African ports, Hapag-Lloyd’s main Mediterranean hub is being used as a key transshipment point for Asia-Africa services.</div>

Instead of its 24,000-TEU ships making direct calls at West African ports, Hapag-Lloyd’s main Mediterranean hub is being used as a key transshipment point for Asia-Africa services.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers are piling into the Asia-Africa trade lanes amid exploding container volume and surging trade with China, increasing both direct services and transshipment from the Mediterranean. Hapag-Lloyd is strategically deploying 24,000-TEU vessels to serve the huge demand this year, where volume on Asia-Africa was up almost 30% year over year in the first five months, according to Container Trades Statistics (CTS). But instead of its megaships making direct calls at West African transshipment ports <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/growth-in-west-african-ports-opens-new-transshipment-options-for-msc-6036859">such as those deployed by Mediterranean Shipping Co.</a> in May, Hapag-Lloyd’s Tanger Med hub in the Mediterranean Strait of Gibraltar is being used as a key transshipment point for Asia-Africa services. “We use our 24,000-TEU ships almost as ‘feeders’ from Asia into Tanger Med and from there we then connect to our dedicated systems in West Africa,” Thomas Orting Jorgensen, senior director of trade management for Africa at Hapag-Lloyd, told the Journal of Commerce. It allows the Gemini Cooperation between Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk to cover the West African port range from Mauritania to Nigeria. Hapag-Lloyd has been taking delivery of its 12-ship order for dual-fuel “Hamburg class” 24,000-TEU ships over the past year and all are now in operation. “The service that brings the containers from Asia to Tanger-Med is an Asia-Europe Gemini product, but all 12 of the vessels are 24,000-TEU Hapag-Lloyd ships,” Jorgensen added. “Then from Tanger-Med, we have five different Hapag-Lloyd services sailing into West African ports.” Services using smaller ships are also being introduced as demand from Africa increases. CMA CGM in June deployed five vessels with an average capacity of 4,400 TEUs in its revised Mediterranean-West Africa service, while MSC also in June launched a six-vessel service from the Mediterranean to West Africa deploying vessels of 2,500 TEUs. Total Asia-Africa volume from January to May of 1.37 million TEUs was up 28% compared with the first five months of last year, according to data from CTS. Asia-West Africa volume of 915,913 TEUs was up 30% and Asia-East Africa volume rose 25% to 455,820 TEUs. The surging container volume contributed to trade between China and Africa increasing 12.4% year over year in the first five months of 2025 to $134 billion, with China’s exports to Africa up 20.2%, according to data released in June by China’s General Administration of Customs. West Africa’s GDP is forecast to expand 4.6% in 2025 and 4.5% in 2026, according to the African Development Bank. Jorgensen said Hapag-Lloyd volume from Asia to West Africa has tripled in the past few years, boosted by the acquisition of Africa specialist carriers Nile Dutch in 2021 and Deutsche Afrika Linien in 2022. Hapag-Lloyd expects its global Africa volume to reach one million TEUs by the end of the year. “Foreign direct investment into Africa has been increasing for several years and will expand further in the years to come,” Jorgensen said. “China is a huge investor in Africa from an infrastructural perspective and also setting up factory production and services. “China has also created huge centers where smaller importers in Africa can consolidate a variety of different products into 20-foot or 40-foot containers, and that also helps facilitate trade,” he noted. <h3>Big ships to spare </h3>The increasing demand from Africa is attractive to carriers taking delivery of huge numbers of megaships amid growing excess capacity concerns. This year, 1.1 million TEUs of capacity in ships of 14,500 TEUs and above will be delivered with another 500,000 TEUs arriving next year, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="4a4bf2f6-d07b-42dc-b6c4-619d82e2e51b"></dynamic-object></div>Alphaliner noted in a recent newsletter that the average vessel size on Asia-West Africa has risen 28% this year from 6,343 TEUs to 8,127 TEUs, largely the result of Mediterranean Shipping Co. in April deploying 24,000-TEU ships on the trade lane. The MSC megaships are calling directly at African transshipment ports of Lomé in Togo, Abidjan in Côte d’Ivoire, Tema in Ghana and Kribi in Cameroon. Soren Toft, CEO of MSC, told an Africa forum in Abidjan in May that, “We are very keen on Africa. We are big believers in Africa,” and has set a target of double-digit annual growth in its intra-African business. In a statement in May to mark the arrival of the first two 24,000-TEU ships in African ports, MSC said the volume of trade between Asia and Africa, and particularly with West Africa, was “experiencing rapid growth,” and that “deploying larger vessels allows MSC to efficiently cater to this increasing demand.” Asia-Africa is regarded as a “heavy trade” and carriers implement overweight surcharges on containers typically weighing more than 18 tons. India-Africa is another heavy trade, and CMA CGM this week announced a $250-per-TEU overweight surcharge for containers with a gross weight exceeding 27 tons. However, the weight of the containers has a direct implication on the number of boxes a megaship can carry. For instance, a shipping source told the Journal of Commerce that the 24,000-TEU MSC ships calling at a West African port would not be able to carry much more than 15,000 TEUs. A spokesperson for MSC said a vessel’s capacity was limited by the maximum tonnage it could carry, and “the number of containers onboard may vary depending on the weight of the cargo loaded on board.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean carriers are piling into the Asia-Africa trade lanes amid exploding container volume and surging trade with China, increasing both direct services and transshipment from the Mediterranean. Hapag-Lloyd is strategically deploying 24,000-TEU vessels to serve the huge demand this year, where volume on Asia-Africa was up almost 30% year over year in the first five months, according to Container Trades Statistics (CTS). But instead of its megaships making direct calls at West African transshipment ports such as those deployed by Mediterranean Shipping Co. in May, Hapag-Lloyd’s Tanger Med hub in the Mediterranean Strait of Gibraltar is being used as a key transshipment point for Asia-Africa services. “We use our 24,000-TEU ships almost as ‘feeders’ from Asia into Tanger Med and from there we then connect to our dedicated systems in West Africa,” Thomas Orting Jorgensen, senior director of trade management for Africa at Hapag-Lloyd, told the Journal of Commerce. It allows the Gemini Cooperation between Hapag-Lloyd and Maersk to cover the West African port range from Mauritania to Nigeria. Hapag-Lloyd has been taking delivery of its 12-ship order for dual-fuel “Hamburg class” 24,000-TEU ships over the past year and all are now in operation. “The service that brings the containers from Asia to Tanger-Med is an Asia-Europe Gemini product, but all 12 of the vessels are 24,000-TEU Hapag-Lloyd ships,” Jorgensen added. “Then from Tanger-Med, we have five different Hapag-Lloyd services sailing into West African ports.” Services using smaller ships are also being introduced as demand from Africa increases. CMA CGM in June deployed five vessels with an average capacity of 4,400 TEUs in its revised Mediterranean-West Africa service, while MSC also in June launched a six-vessel service from the Mediterranean to West Africa deploying vessels of 2,500 TEUs. Total Asia-Africa volume from January to May of 1.37 million TEUs was up 28% compared with the first five months of last year, according to data from CTS. Asia-West Africa volume of 915,913 TEUs was up 30% and Asia-East Africa volume rose 25% to 455,820 TEUs. The surging container volume contributed to trade between China and Africa increasing 12.4% year over year in the first five months of 2025 to $134 billion, with China’s exports to Africa up 20.2%, according to data released in June by China’s General Administration of Customs. West Africa’s GDP is forecast to expand 4.6% in 2025 and 4.5% in 2026, according to the African Development Bank. Jorgensen said Hapag-Lloyd volume from Asia to West Africa has tripled in the past few years, boosted by the acquisition of Africa specialist carriers Nile Dutch in 2021 and Deutsche Afrika Linien in 2022. Hapag-Lloyd expects its global Africa volume to reach one million TEUs by the end of the year. “Foreign direct investment into Africa has been increasing for several years and will expand further in the years to come,” Jorgensen said. “China is a huge investor in Africa from an infrastructural perspective and also setting up factory production and services. “China has also created huge centers where smaller importers in Africa can consolidate a variety of different products into 20-foot or 40-foot containers, and that also helps facilitate trade,” he noted. Big ships to spare The increasing demand from Africa is attractive to carriers taking delivery of huge numbers of megaships amid growing excess capacity concerns. This year, 1.1 million TEUs of capacity in ships of 14,500 TEUs and above will be delivered with another 500,000 TEUs arriving next year, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Alphaliner noted in a recent newsletter that the average vessel size on Asia-West Africa has risen 28% this year from 6,343 TEUs to 8,127 TEUs, largely the result of Mediterranean Shipping Co. in April deploying 24,000-TEU ships on the trade lane. The MSC megaships are calling directly at African transshipment ports of Lomé in Togo, Abidjan in Côte d’Ivoire, Tema in Ghana and Kribi in Cameroon. Soren Toft, CEO of MSC, told an Africa forum in Abidjan in May that, “We are very keen on Africa. We are big believers in Africa,” and has set a target of double-digit annual growth in its intra-African business. In a statement in May to mark the arrival of the first two 24,000-TEU ships in African ports, MSC said the volume of trade between Asia and Africa, and particularly with West Africa, was “experiencing rapid growth,” and that “deploying larger vessels allows MSC to efficiently cater to this increasing demand.” Asia-Africa is regarded as a “heavy trade” and carriers implement overweight surcharges on containers typically weighing more than 18 tons. India-Africa is another heavy trade, and CMA CGM this week announced a $250-per-TEU overweight surcharge for containers with a gross weight exceeding 27 tons. However, the weight of the containers has a direct implication on the number of boxes a megaship can carry. For instance, a shipping source told the Journal of Commerce that the 24,000-TEU MSC ships calling at a West African port would not be able to carry much more than 15,000 TEUs. A spokesperson for MSC said a vessel’s capacity was limited by the maximum tonnage it could carry, and “the number of containers onboard may vary depending on the weight of the cargo loaded on board.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Asia-Europe

Maritime

Hapag-Lloyd megaships serve West Africa via Tanger Med hub

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers are pulling back on their blanking campaigns on the Asia-ECSA lane in July after two months of blanking campaigns largely neutralized capacity additions to the lane.</div>

Carriers are pulling back on their blanking campaigns on the Asia-ECSA lane in July after two months of blanking campaigns largely neutralized capacity additions to the lane.

<div class="phx-topic">Container lines are easing up on a more aggressive approach to blank sailings on the Asia-East Coast South America (ECSA) lane in July, with forwarders expecting space to loosen this month if external factors don’t throw another wrench into this peak season. Carriers are blanking only 1% of capacity on the trade in July, a major pullback from removing 10.4% of functional capacity last month and some 13.5% in May, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. The reduced skipping of port calls set for this month will put downward pressure on container spot rates unless there is another peak season spoiler on the trade similar to last year, when a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rising-china-ecsa-trade-leads-carriers-to-revamp-services-amid-surging-rates-5221824">surge of electric vehicle shipments</a> kept space tight. An earlier peak season coupled with better capacity control in the spring began pushing up rates in early May, rising from $1,380 per TEU to $6,650 in the final week of June, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Container spot rates <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/rising-china-ecsa-trade-leads-carriers-to-revamp-services-amid-surging-rates-5221824">peaked last year</a> at $9,500 per FEU on July 1, the highest level since August 2022. “It seems the first half of July will keep the high rates,” said Marcelo Machado, a freight forwarder at CSS Logistics in Brazil. “But it will drop down for the end of July and August.” The elevated pricing on the trade has driven carriers to increase tonnage there over the last year, boosting capacity by 46.3% to 196,300 TEUs since July 2024. Additionally, CMA CGM and Maersk, as well as HMM and ONE, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-maersk-become-latest-to-launch-joint-express-asia-ecsa-service-5956746">launched two joint Asia-ECSA services in April</a>. Maersk has been the most aggressive in adding tonnage, having boosted deployment by more than half since July 2024 and giving it the largest share of the trade at nearly a quarter, according to MDS. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Container lines are easing up on a more aggressive approach to blank sailings on the Asia-East Coast South America (ECSA) lane in July, with forwarders expecting space to loosen this month if external factors don’t throw another wrench into this peak season. Carriers are blanking only 1% of capacity on the trade in July, a major pullback from removing 10.4% of functional capacity last month and some 13.5% in May, according to maritime intelligence provider eeSea. The reduced skipping of port calls set for this month will put downward pressure on container spot rates unless there is another peak season spoiler on the trade similar to last year, when a surge of electric vehicle shipments kept space tight. An earlier peak season coupled with better capacity control in the spring began pushing up rates in early May, rising from $1,380 per TEU to $6,650 in the final week of June, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Container spot rates peaked last year at $9,500 per FEU on July 1, the highest level since August 2022. “It seems the first half of July will keep the high rates,” said Marcelo Machado, a freight forwarder at CSS Logistics in Brazil. “But it will drop down for the end of July and August.” The elevated pricing on the trade has driven carriers to increase tonnage there over the last year, boosting capacity by 46.3% to 196,300 TEUs since July 2024. Additionally, CMA CGM and Maersk, as well as HMM and ONE, launched two joint Asia-ECSA services in April . Maersk has been the most aggressive in adding tonnage, having boosted deployment by more than half since July 2024 and giving it the largest share of the trade at nearly a quarter, according to MDS. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

International ports

Container capacity from Asia to East Coast of South America loosens significantly

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The long-term effects of US tariffs and the removal of the de minimis exemption has disrupted established air cargo flows and is clouding the industry outlook for the year.</div>

The long-term effects of US tariffs and the removal of the de minimis exemption has disrupted established air cargo flows and is clouding the industry outlook for the year.

<div class="phx-topic">The air cargo industry is flying into a bumpy second half, with persistent uncertainty over US tariff levels and the bleeding of freight due to new US “de minimis” curbs on low-value Chinese goods. It is impacting every aspect of the industry, from disrupting cargo flows to capacity deployment to demand, and clouding the outlook for the year. ”We just simply cannot predict how that is going to play out,” Brie Carere, FedEx’s chief customer officer, told investors on the company’s fourth quarter earnings call on June 24. After volumes from the US to China “deteriorated sharply,” in May, FedEx said it couldn’t provide a full year forecast due to the “uncertain global demand,” environment. Global air cargo spot rates declined for a second consecutive month in June, down 4% year over year as the supply of capacity overtook demand for the first time in 19 months, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “We are starting to see the longer-term effects of all this uncertainty because a lot of damage has been done,” Niall van de Wouw, chief air freight officer at Xeneta, said in a market update Friday. “This might be the new reality for the foreseeable future as the industry is facing a much more challenging second half of the year. The air cargo market is losing altitude amid so much uncertainty,” he added. After eliminating the duty-free exemption for low-value shipments from China valued at under $800 on May 2, the US on May 14 reduced the de minimis tariff on the low-value imports from 120% to 54%. Items sent via post from China to the US will be charged a flat fee of $100, regardless of value. In 2024, e-commerce shipments accounted for about 50% of China-to-US air freight volume, filling dozens of freighters every day. Data from air cargo analyst Rotate showed that in the days following May 2, 40 freighters per day were pulled out of the trans-Pacific. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) noted in an industry outlook this week that tariffs and the removal of the de minimis exemption have disrupted established air cargo flows, forcing carriers to adjust or redeploy capacity on certain routes. “Uncertainty remains high, which impedes planning and optimization along the supply chain, and further loss of momentum in the coming months cannot be ruled out,” IATA warned. <h3>Refocusing e-commerce efforts </h3>Tim van Leeuwen, head of consulting at Rotate, said China-US air cargo demand in May fell 28% year over year, driven by declines in both general air cargo and e-commerce, with early June figures showing the trend has continued. “Direct China-US freighter capacity in June was down 11% compared to March, wiping out capacity growth we have seen over the past year and returning to similar capacity as June 2024,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “The e-commerce platforms seem to be refocusing their efforts, with significant growth of exports to the European Union and Asia-Pacific replacing lost demand to the US,” he noted. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="0bd62abc-58b3-4d7e-bfd7-9616da3c9b9c"></dynamic-object></div>Faced with such an uncertain and volatile trade lane, Van de Wouw said forwarders were taking a cautious approach to the market. ”Around 46% of their procured volumes remain in the spot market, reflecting a belief that rates may yet fall further,” he said. “Their wait-and-see approach favours flexibility over long-term commitments — for now.” China-North America spot rates of $4.86/kg last week fell below $5/kg for the first time in almost two months, dropping 5% compared to the previous week, according to the Baltic Air Index (BAI). Spot rates from China to North Europe were at $4.23 per kilogram in the last week of June, down slightly compared to the previous week but remaining above the $4 mark since March. Dimerco Express Group put the total China-US cargo volumes decline at 60% in May and June, with e-commerce bookings down around 50%. The Taiwan-based forwarder noted in a July market outlook that there was no sign of recovery in e-commerce volume and scheduled freighter flights continue to be cancelled. <h3>Positive growth areas </h3>However, there are bright spots in the gloomy outlook. Demand out of Southeast Asia — particularly from Thailand and Vietnam — is rising ahead of the upcoming tariff deadline next week. President Donald Trump’s 90-day pause on so-called “reciprocal” tariffs ends at midnight on July 8. “Intra-Asia traffic is holding strong, especially on routes linking China with Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore,” said Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Dimerco Express Group. ”Capacity on these lanes is tight, and we’re seeing higher rates compared to the same period last year,” she added. The summer season will also bring increased demand for perishable exports on the trans-Pacific, both out of Asia and on the backhaul routes, good news for airlines facing such dramatic cuts in e-commerce volume. “Air imports from Asia are expected to rebound and grow during the summer months, driven by the early peak shipping season. Shippers are ramping up volumes, particularly toward Asia, with a growing shift from ocean to air,” the forwarder said. Air freight space on the westbound routes will likely remain tight, with possible booking delays or rollovers and Dimerco advised pre-booking at least five to seven days in advance for high-volume or time-sensitive cargo. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The air cargo industry is flying into a bumpy second half, with persistent uncertainty over US tariff levels and the bleeding of freight due to new US “de minimis” curbs on low-value Chinese goods. It is impacting every aspect of the industry, from disrupting cargo flows to capacity deployment to demand, and clouding the outlook for the year. ”We just simply cannot predict how that is going to play out,” Brie Carere, FedEx’s chief customer officer, told investors on the company’s fourth quarter earnings call on June 24. After volumes from the US to China “deteriorated sharply,” in May, FedEx said it couldn’t provide a full year forecast due to the “uncertain global demand,” environment. Global air cargo spot rates declined for a second consecutive month in June, down 4% year over year as the supply of capacity overtook demand for the first time in 19 months, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. “We are starting to see the longer-term effects of all this uncertainty because a lot of damage has been done,” Niall van de Wouw, chief air freight officer at Xeneta, said in a market update Friday. “This might be the new reality for the foreseeable future as the industry is facing a much more challenging second half of the year. The air cargo market is losing altitude amid so much uncertainty,” he added. After eliminating the duty-free exemption for low-value shipments from China valued at under $800 on May 2, the US on May 14 reduced the de minimis tariff on the low-value imports from 120% to 54%. Items sent via post from China to the US will be charged a flat fee of $100, regardless of value. In 2024, e-commerce shipments accounted for about 50% of China-to-US air freight volume, filling dozens of freighters every day. Data from air cargo analyst Rotate showed that in the days following May 2, 40 freighters per day were pulled out of the trans-Pacific. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) noted in an industry outlook this week that tariffs and the removal of the de minimis exemption have disrupted established air cargo flows, forcing carriers to adjust or redeploy capacity on certain routes. “Uncertainty remains high, which impedes planning and optimization along the supply chain, and further loss of momentum in the coming months cannot be ruled out,” IATA warned. Refocusing e-commerce efforts Tim van Leeuwen, head of consulting at Rotate, said China-US air cargo demand in May fell 28% year over year, driven by declines in both general air cargo and e-commerce, with early June figures showing the trend has continued. “Direct China-US freighter capacity in June was down 11% compared to March, wiping out capacity growth we have seen over the past year and returning to similar capacity as June 2024,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “The e-commerce platforms seem to be refocusing their efforts, with significant growth of exports to the European Union and Asia-Pacific replacing lost demand to the US,” he noted. Faced with such an uncertain and volatile trade lane, Van de Wouw said forwarders were taking a cautious approach to the market. ”Around 46% of their procured volumes remain in the spot market, reflecting a belief that rates may yet fall further,” he said. “Their wait-and-see approach favours flexibility over long-term commitments — for now.” China-North America spot rates of $4.86/kg last week fell below $5/kg for the first time in almost two months, dropping 5% compared to the previous week, according to the Baltic Air Index (BAI). Spot rates from China to North Europe were at $4.23 per kilogram in the last week of June, down slightly compared to the previous week but remaining above the $4 mark since March. Dimerco Express Group put the total China-US cargo volumes decline at 60% in May and June, with e-commerce bookings down around 50%. The Taiwan-based forwarder noted in a July market outlook that there was no sign of recovery in e-commerce volume and scheduled freighter flights continue to be cancelled. Positive growth areas However, there are bright spots in the gloomy outlook. Demand out of Southeast Asia — particularly from Thailand and Vietnam — is rising ahead of the upcoming tariff deadline next week. President Donald Trump’s 90-day pause on so-called “reciprocal” tariffs ends at midnight on July 8. “Intra-Asia traffic is holding strong, especially on routes linking China with Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore,” said Kathy Liu, vice president of global sales and marketing at Dimerco Express Group. ”Capacity on these lanes is tight, and we’re seeing higher rates compared to the same period last year,” she added. The summer season will also bring increased demand for perishable exports on the trans-Pacific, both out of Asia and on the backhaul routes, good news for airlines facing such dramatic cuts in e-commerce volume. “Air imports from Asia are expected to rebound and grow during the summer months, driven by the early peak shipping season. Shippers are ramping up volumes, particularly toward Asia, with a growing shift from ocean to air,” the forwarder said. Air freight space on the westbound routes will likely remain tight, with possible booking delays or rollovers and Dimerco advised pre-booking at least five to seven days in advance for high-volume or time-sensitive cargo. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

Trans-Pacific air cargo market flying into turbulent second half

Use code SKSGW995 at checkout to save $500 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SkSW25 at checkout to save 25% on a SIlver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

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

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSGW995 to save $500 on an annual Gold subscription and 20% on a TPM26 registration!

Subscribe Now - FT/Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSW25 to save 25% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


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

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SUMMER SALE EXTENDED: Use code SKSW595 at checkout to save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription and 20% on TPM26! 

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A must-attend conference for shippers & logistics providers moving goods inland

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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.

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

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

Oregon earmarks funds for proposed Coos Bay terminal

USTR plan to tax ro/ro ships exceeds statutory authority: stakeholders

Hapag-Lloyd megaships serve West Africa via Tanger Med hub