<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Gov. Gavin Newsom says a Senate vote that appears to be the first step in killing California’s stringent emissions standards is “illegal” and will be challenged in court.</div>

Gov. Gavin Newsom says a Senate vote that appears to be the first step in killing California’s stringent emissions standards is “illegal” and will be challenged in court.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">California will take legal action to overturn a party-line vote in the US Senate that killed a federal waiver allowing the state to set its own emissions standards for cars that are tougher than national standards. “This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement after Thursday’s 51-44 Senate vote. “We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again.” While that challenge is ongoing, the Senate is likely to next target California’s electric truck mandates and diesel emissions rules, meaning Thursday’s vote was just the first of three taking aim at California’s stringent emissions standards. The second and third resolutions would seek to overturn waivers for California’s electric truck mandate and tighter controls on diesel truck emissions. The state wants all drayage trucks to be “zero-emissions” trucks by 2035 and all medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2045. The US House of Representatives approved all three resolutions attacking the Golden State’s vehicle emissions and clean air programs on April 30. Congress is trying to revoke the federal waivers allowing California to set its own standards — authorized under the Clean Air Act — using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). However, the Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian both advised that use of the CRA in this case is illegal; Republicans in Congress say it is legal. That opens the door for lawsuits challenging the overturning of these three waivers. <h3>‘Foolish vote’ </h3>The Senate’s action also brought quick responses from California’s clean air regulatory agency. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) said in a statement it “profoundly disagrees with [Thursday’s] unconstitutional illegal and foolish vote attempting to undermine critical clean air protections.” “California will pursue every available remedy to challenge these actions and defend our right to protect the public from dangerous air pollution,” said Liane Randolph, CARB’s chairman. “Turning the clock back on both cleaner combustion engine requirements and zero-emission technology is an attack on clean air.” The Senate’s action will have no immediate impact on the ongoing efforts of drayage operators to tap into grant money that has been provided by sources such as the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Matt Schrap, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association, told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The grant money is used by drayage operators to purchase zero-emission trucks, as well as for the development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the Los Angeles-Long Beach harbor area, Schrap said. “There’s a ton of grant money out there,” he said. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for the past three years have been helping to fund a <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/la-lb-ports-investing-25-million-in-charging-infrastructure-for-electric-trucks-5192220">clean truck program</a> by charging $10 per TEU on loaded containers hauled to and from their marine terminals. The California Trucking Association (CTA), which represents trucking companies throughout the state, said in a statement Friday that truckers have responded to the nation’s toughest environmental regulations by “reducing emissions by over 99%.” But the Senate’s action effectively resets the discussion, which, moving forward, “must be grounded in reality, [must] consider affordability and be focused on the achievable rather than the aspirational,” CTA said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

California will take legal action to overturn a party-line vote in the US Senate that killed a federal waiver allowing the state to set its own emissions standards for cars that are tougher than national standards. “This Senate vote is illegal. Republicans went around their own parliamentarian to defy decades of precedent,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom said in a statement after Thursday’s 51-44 Senate vote. “We won’t stand by as Trump Republicans make America smoggy again.” While that challenge is ongoing, the Senate is likely to next target California’s electric truck mandates and diesel emissions rules, meaning Thursday’s vote was just the first of three taking aim at California’s stringent emissions standards. The second and third resolutions would seek to overturn waivers for California’s electric truck mandate and tighter controls on diesel truck emissions. The state wants all drayage trucks to be “zero-emissions” trucks by 2035 and all medium- and heavy-duty trucks by 2045. The US House of Representatives approved all three resolutions attacking the Golden State’s vehicle emissions and clean air programs on April 30. Congress is trying to revoke the federal waivers allowing California to set its own standards — authorized under the Clean Air Act — using the Congressional Review Act (CRA). However, the Government Accountability Office and Senate Parliamentarian both advised that use of the CRA in this case is illegal; Republicans in Congress say it is legal. That opens the door for lawsuits challenging the overturning of these three waivers. ‘Foolish vote’ The Senate’s action also brought quick responses from California’s clean air regulatory agency. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) said in a statement it “profoundly disagrees with [Thursday’s] unconstitutional illegal and foolish vote attempting to undermine critical clean air protections.” “California will pursue every available remedy to challenge these actions and defend our right to protect the public from dangerous air pollution,” said Liane Randolph, CARB’s chairman. “Turning the clock back on both cleaner combustion engine requirements and zero-emission technology is an attack on clean air.” The Senate’s action will have no immediate impact on the ongoing efforts of drayage operators to tap into grant money that has been provided by sources such as the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Matt Schrap, CEO of the Harbor Trucking Association, told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The grant money is used by drayage operators to purchase zero-emission trucks, as well as for the development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the Los Angeles-Long Beach harbor area, Schrap said. “There’s a ton of grant money out there,” he said. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for the past three years have been helping to fund a clean truck program by charging $10 per TEU on loaded containers hauled to and from their marine terminals. The California Trucking Association (CTA), which represents trucking companies throughout the state, said in a statement Friday that truckers have responded to the nation’s toughest environmental regulations by “reducing emissions by over 99%.” But the Senate’s action effectively resets the discussion, which, moving forward, “must be grounded in reality, [must] consider affordability and be focused on the achievable rather than the aspirational,” CTA said. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Surface

Trucking News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

California rips US Senate move targeting state’s emissions rules

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The GPS technology will provide real-time visibility into chassis location, mileage and high-impact events on the road that could require repairs.</div>

The GPS technology will provide real-time visibility into chassis location, mileage and high-impact events on the road that could require repairs.

<div class="phx-topic">US chassis provider Direct ChassisLink Inc. (DCLI) will deploy BlackBerry Radar tracking devices across 100,000 of its domestic 53-foot chassis, a move that would benefit shippers seeking track-and-trace capability, faster turnover of units and reliable equipment that doesn’t break down. The move is an extension of an existing five-year partnership between DCLI and Blackberry. The GPS technology will provide real-time visibility into chassis location, mileage and high-impact events on the road that could require repairs. DCLI said Thursday the new devices will allow the company to develop consistent maintenance schedules, thereby reducing equipment downtime for major repairs. The trackers will also ensure fewer errors during the customer billing process, it said. DCLI operates a chassis pool for CSX Transportation and Union Pacific Railroad and has contracts with carriers, brokers and retailers who have freight on BNSF and Norfolk Southern Railways. While private containers from companies such as Hub Group, J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Schneider National already have GPS devices installed, the rail-owned container fleet used by non-asset brokers is only partially equipped with GPS units. An industry-wide project to put units on the tens of thousands of rail-owned containers is ongoing. Other private containers, such as those from less-than-truckload carriers and even some shipper-owned boxes, might not have GPS devices on them at all, leaving no visibility without the devices installed on the DCLI chassis. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US chassis provider Direct ChassisLink Inc. (DCLI) will deploy BlackBerry Radar tracking devices across 100,000 of its domestic 53-foot chassis, a move that would benefit shippers seeking track-and-trace capability, faster turnover of units and reliable equipment that doesn’t break down. The move is an extension of an existing five-year partnership between DCLI and Blackberry. The GPS technology will provide real-time visibility into chassis location, mileage and high-impact events on the road that could require repairs. DCLI said Thursday the new devices will allow the company to develop consistent maintenance schedules, thereby reducing equipment downtime for major repairs. The trackers will also ensure fewer errors during the customer billing process, it said. DCLI operates a chassis pool for CSX Transportation and Union Pacific Railroad and has contracts with carriers, brokers and retailers who have freight on BNSF and Norfolk Southern Railways. While private containers from companies such as Hub Group, J.B. Hunt Transport Services and Schneider National already have GPS devices installed, the rail-owned container fleet used by non-asset brokers is only partially equipped with GPS units. An industry-wide project to put units on the tens of thousands of rail-owned containers is ongoing. Other private containers, such as those from less-than-truckload carriers and even some shipper-owned boxes, might not have GPS devices on them at all, leaving no visibility without the devices installed on the DCLI chassis. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

DCLI-Blackberry deal will improve visibility for domestic chassis pools

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Demand for goods traditionally shipped by air has been weakened by global economic issues, high inflation in destination markets and geopolitical issues that have impacted trade flows. </div>

Demand for goods traditionally shipped by air has been weakened by global economic issues, high inflation in destination markets and geopolitical issues that have impacted trade flows.

<div class="phx-topic">Airlines prioritized surging e-commerce shipments on trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe routes over the past few years at the expense of general air freight. But as US tariffs curb low-value imports from China, carriers are finding traditional markets have also declined. Air cargo posted a record 2024 that saw 12% growth in global volume, with much of the demand generated by e-commerce. But the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-volumes-fall-on-trans-pacific-as-us-de-minimis-changes-loom-5993599">May 2 elimination of the US’ duty-free exemption for low-value shipments</a> from China under so-called “de minimis” rules has led to a drop in air cargo demand on the trans-Pacific. Airlines focusing heavily on this sector are now searching for business in the more traditional forwarder-driven markets that have weakened through a range of economic and geopolitical factors, according to Martin Habisreitinger, COO of air freight at Hellmann Worldwide Logistics. “The surge in e-commerce, particularly during the pandemic, created an unprecedented demand on specific routes, especially trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe,” Habisreitinger told the Journal of Commerce Friday. “Airlines, facing capacity constraints and driven by yield management strategies, naturally prioritized this high-volume, often higher-paying segment,” he added. “This prioritization, coupled with port congestion and supply chain disruptions, sometimes led to capacity challenges for traditional cargo shippers.” A source from another global forwarder who did not want to be identified said service providers were largely excluded from the e-commerce business as the main Chinese online marketplaces, Temu, Shein and Tik Tok, contracted their capacity directly from airlines. <h3>Carriers ‘neglected’ traditional markets </h3>While airlines devoted most of their attention to shipping e-commerce out of China, the traditional markets were being weakened by global economic instability that dampened demand for goods traditionally shipped by air, high inflation in destination markets and geopolitical issues that impacted trade flows. “Air cargo airlines neglected thinking about the long-term picture to chase the cross-border e-commerce business that has been served to them on a silver platter,” said Frederic Horst, managing director of the consultancy Trade and Transport Group. The Sydney-based analyst told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week that general air freight traffic peaked in 2018 and has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Data from Trade and Transport Group shows that in the past two years through the end of April on both the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe routes, higher-value general cargo volume has been declining while lower-value air freight shipments have soared. US trade statistics regard imports valued at $2,000 or less as “de minimis” traffic. “I don’t think [airlines] realized what was going on in the background where their traditional market was in decline, and now they need to go back to focusing on general air freight,” Horst said. “But the question is, is that traffic still there?” Habisreitinger emphasized that although the traditional market has declined, it remains a significant part of the air cargo industry. “We’re seeing signs of stabilization and even some growth in certain sectors,” he said. “The decline isn’t uniform across all industries. Some sectors, like pharmaceuticals and specialized high-value goods, have shown resilience.” Following trade talks in Geneva between the US and China earlier this month, part of the deal included a reduction of the US’ 120% duty to 54%. An additional per-parcel fee of $100 came into effect on May 14 that was effectively a hammer blow to e-commerce companies making use of the de minimis exemption because of the low value of online products ordered from China. However, Horst believes transporting low-value products by air was never going to be sustainable, even without the US changes to de minimis rules. “At some point this traffic was going to disappear because it’s too cheap to move by air,” he said, pointing to Chinese customs data that puts the average value per shipment near $15 per kilogram. “You can’t be paying air freight rates of $5/kg or $6/kg, plus the ground network distribution cost, for that. It was a pure ‘let’s grow our market share’ play,” Horst added. “The focus is shifting to some other markets now and a lot of volumes may just disappear. It’s also discretionary spending at a time of high inflation. Nobody really needs the stuff they buy on Temu or Shein.” <h3>Freighters shift to more lucrative markets </h3>Since May 2, when the US revoked the duty-free status of low-value imports from China, there has been a drop in air cargo demand on the trans-Pacific. A clearer view of the market will come with the May data that analysts expect will show the extent of the decline in trans-Pacific demand following the rolling out of the tariffs and the shifting of chartered freighter capacity to other, more lucrative trade lanes. The first signs of that drop in demand and the shifting of freighters are visible in data from air cargo analyst Rotate, which shows freighter capacity deployed on the eastbound trans-Pacific from May 12–18 fell 8% year over year to 82,000 tons while increasing 19% year over year to 74,000 tons on Asia-Europe. “It is difficult to put numbers in exact terms because the May data is not yet available, but shippers that are not willing to ship to the US because of the tariffs are getting creative in searching for new markets,” a Rotate spokesperson said. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="d9092521-9dbe-4569-bade-b3802c73bc98"></dynamic-object></div>By the end of April, around 100,000 tons a month of de minimis-type traffic was moving across the Pacific on more than 60 freighters dedicated to carrying e-commerce. The volume of cross-border low-value cargo imports from China in the first quarter grew by 28.5% year over year, Trade and Transport data shows. “Many freighter operators pulled out of north-south markets like Africa-Europe, Latin America-Europe and Latin America-US to put freighters into the trans-Pacific and to a lesser extent into Asia-Europe,” Horst said. For example, he said freighter operator Cargolux offered 35 destinations in Africa in previous years but now had only two — Johannesburg and Nairobi. In the rush to move air cargo before May 2, the rate from Hong Kong to the US in mid-April shot up 50% compared with the previous week to $7.95/kg, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Since then, the rates have been falling, with data from the Baltic Air Index putting the rate from China to North America this week at $4.72/kg. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Airlines prioritized surging e-commerce shipments on trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe routes over the past few years at the expense of general air freight. But as US tariffs curb low-value imports from China, carriers are finding traditional markets have also declined. Air cargo posted a record 2024 that saw 12% growth in global volume, with much of the demand generated by e-commerce. But the May 2 elimination of the US’ duty-free exemption for low-value shipments from China under so-called “de minimis” rules has led to a drop in air cargo demand on the trans-Pacific. Airlines focusing heavily on this sector are now searching for business in the more traditional forwarder-driven markets that have weakened through a range of economic and geopolitical factors, according to Martin Habisreitinger, COO of air freight at Hellmann Worldwide Logistics. “The surge in e-commerce, particularly during the pandemic, created an unprecedented demand on specific routes, especially trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe,” Habisreitinger told the Journal of Commerce Friday. “Airlines, facing capacity constraints and driven by yield management strategies, naturally prioritized this high-volume, often higher-paying segment,” he added. “This prioritization, coupled with port congestion and supply chain disruptions, sometimes led to capacity challenges for traditional cargo shippers.” A source from another global forwarder who did not want to be identified said service providers were largely excluded from the e-commerce business as the main Chinese online marketplaces, Temu, Shein and Tik Tok, contracted their capacity directly from airlines. Carriers ‘neglected’ traditional markets While airlines devoted most of their attention to shipping e-commerce out of China, the traditional markets were being weakened by global economic instability that dampened demand for goods traditionally shipped by air, high inflation in destination markets and geopolitical issues that impacted trade flows. “Air cargo airlines neglected thinking about the long-term picture to chase the cross-border e-commerce business that has been served to them on a silver platter,” said Frederic Horst, managing director of the consultancy Trade and Transport Group. The Sydney-based analyst told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week that general air freight traffic peaked in 2018 and has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. Data from Trade and Transport Group shows that in the past two years through the end of April on both the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe routes, higher-value general cargo volume has been declining while lower-value air freight shipments have soared. US trade statistics regard imports valued at $2,000 or less as “de minimis” traffic. “I don’t think [airlines] realized what was going on in the background where their traditional market was in decline, and now they need to go back to focusing on general air freight,” Horst said. “But the question is, is that traffic still there?” Habisreitinger emphasized that although the traditional market has declined, it remains a significant part of the air cargo industry. “We’re seeing signs of stabilization and even some growth in certain sectors,” he said. “The decline isn’t uniform across all industries. Some sectors, like pharmaceuticals and specialized high-value goods, have shown resilience.” Following trade talks in Geneva between the US and China earlier this month, part of the deal included a reduction of the US’ 120% duty to 54%. An additional per-parcel fee of $100 came into effect on May 14 that was effectively a hammer blow to e-commerce companies making use of the de minimis exemption because of the low value of online products ordered from China. However, Horst believes transporting low-value products by air was never going to be sustainable, even without the US changes to de minimis rules. “At some point this traffic was going to disappear because it’s too cheap to move by air,” he said, pointing to Chinese customs data that puts the average value per shipment near $15 per kilogram. “You can’t be paying air freight rates of $5/kg or $6/kg, plus the ground network distribution cost, for that. It was a pure ‘let’s grow our market share’ play,” Horst added. “The focus is shifting to some other markets now and a lot of volumes may just disappear. It’s also discretionary spending at a time of high inflation. Nobody really needs the stuff they buy on Temu or Shein.” Freighters shift to more lucrative markets Since May 2, when the US revoked the duty-free status of low-value imports from China, there has been a drop in air cargo demand on the trans-Pacific. A clearer view of the market will come with the May data that analysts expect will show the extent of the decline in trans-Pacific demand following the rolling out of the tariffs and the shifting of chartered freighter capacity to other, more lucrative trade lanes. The first signs of that drop in demand and the shifting of freighters are visible in data from air cargo analyst Rotate, which shows freighter capacity deployed on the eastbound trans-Pacific from May 12–18 fell 8% year over year to 82,000 tons while increasing 19% year over year to 74,000 tons on Asia-Europe. “It is difficult to put numbers in exact terms because the May data is not yet available, but shippers that are not willing to ship to the US because of the tariffs are getting creative in searching for new markets,” a Rotate spokesperson said. By the end of April, around 100,000 tons a month of de minimis-type traffic was moving across the Pacific on more than 60 freighters dedicated to carrying e-commerce. The volume of cross-border low-value cargo imports from China in the first quarter grew by 28.5% year over year, Trade and Transport data shows. “Many freighter operators pulled out of north-south markets like Africa-Europe, Latin America-Europe and Latin America-US to put freighters into the trans-Pacific and to a lesser extent into Asia-Europe,” Horst said. For example, he said freighter operator Cargolux offered 35 destinations in Africa in previous years but now had only two — Johannesburg and Nairobi. In the rush to move air cargo before May 2, the rate from Hong Kong to the US in mid-April shot up 50% compared with the previous week to $7.95/kg, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Since then, the rates have been falling, with data from the Baltic Air Index putting the rate from China to North America this week at $4.72/kg. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

General air cargo in decline as China-US e-commerce boom slows

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Luxembourg-based carrier is the latest airline to sign a supply agreement for sustainable aviation fuel, but it comes as the industry makes slow progress toward decarbonization. </div>

The Luxembourg-based carrier is the latest airline to sign a supply agreement for sustainable aviation fuel, but it comes as the industry makes slow progress toward decarbonization.

<div class="phx-topic">Air freighter operator Cargolux and forwarder AIT Worldwide Logistics have formed a partnership to source sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) that will be used to move cargo owned by Microsoft Cloud Services. Under the three-year deal, the companies will buy SAF from US-based Valero Energy, allowing them to save 66,000 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions between now and 2027. Luxembourg-based carrier Cargolux is the latest airline to sign an SAF supply agreement as the aviation industry makes incremental progress toward decarbonization. The SAF in the deal will be sourced from used cooking oil and tallow, an animal fat that will not contain palm oil or any derivatives. The fuel will be stored at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the partner companies said in a joint statement this week. “Securing this noteworthy volume of SAF with Cargolux over a three-year period is a key aspect of our global supply chain solutions for Microsoft Cloud Services, enabling all parties to strive closer towards our emissions reduction goals,” said Chelsea Lamar, vice president of global sustainability at AIT. The volume of SAF involved in the deal was not disclosed. Colin Todd, general manager of cloud manufacturing operations and fulfilment at Microsoft, highlighted the challenge in cutting emissions and narrowing the cost gap between SAF and existing Jet A aviation fuel. “By working together to increase the production and use of SAF, we can help to cost effectively drive down emissions and increase the potential for more use of alternative fuels across the transport ecosystem,” Todd said in the statement. Many of the world’s major airlines have signed SAF sourcing agreements with fuel producers and logistics providers, but it has been slow going. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects SAF production to reach 2.1 million metric tons this year, which is just 0.7% of total jet fuel supply. <h3>Registry will track SAF across value chain </h3>In a move aimed at accelerating the uptake of SAF toward the 2050 net-zero industry target, IATA earlier this year launched the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Registry that will be managed by the Civil Aviation Decarbonization Organization (CADO). The registry will ensure the environmental benefits of SAF can be tracked as they move across the SAF value chain and enable the claiming of those benefits against regulatory obligations and voluntary schemes by airlines and corporate customers. It will also address the challenge of limited SAF supply — which is acutely scarce and available in only a few locations globally — by connecting airlines with SAF producers and suppliers, regardless of their geographic location. While some biofuels are produced sustainably and deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions, there are scalability limitations. Most biofuels are produced from food crop-based feedstocks, which come with direct and indirect deforestation as well as many other sustainability issues ranging from water scarcity to food security. As a result, Europe has excluded the use of feed- and food-based biofuels from its flagship shipping fuels regulation, FuelEU Maritime, that was implemented on Jan. 1. Aviation is part of the European Union’s cap-in-trade emissions trading system that will be reviewed in 2026. Climate activist Transport &amp; Environment (T&amp;E) believes this will be an opportunity for the European Commission to address “a fundamental flaw” in the regulation that only covers flights in Europe. A study by T&amp;E last month estimated that 70% of emissions generated by airlines in 2024 were on intercontinental flights for which airlines were not charged, with the London-New York route topping the list. The study found the European aviation sector has almost fully bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, reaching 96% of 2019 flight numbers and 98% of emissions last year. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Air freighter operator Cargolux and forwarder AIT Worldwide Logistics have formed a partnership to source sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) that will be used to move cargo owned by Microsoft Cloud Services. Under the three-year deal, the companies will buy SAF from US-based Valero Energy, allowing them to save 66,000 tons of CO2-equivalent emissions between now and 2027. Luxembourg-based carrier Cargolux is the latest airline to sign an SAF supply agreement as the aviation industry makes incremental progress toward decarbonization. The SAF in the deal will be sourced from used cooking oil and tallow, an animal fat that will not contain palm oil or any derivatives. The fuel will be stored at George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, the partner companies said in a joint statement this week. “Securing this noteworthy volume of SAF with Cargolux over a three-year period is a key aspect of our global supply chain solutions for Microsoft Cloud Services, enabling all parties to strive closer towards our emissions reduction goals,” said Chelsea Lamar, vice president of global sustainability at AIT. The volume of SAF involved in the deal was not disclosed. Colin Todd, general manager of cloud manufacturing operations and fulfilment at Microsoft, highlighted the challenge in cutting emissions and narrowing the cost gap between SAF and existing Jet A aviation fuel. “By working together to increase the production and use of SAF, we can help to cost effectively drive down emissions and increase the potential for more use of alternative fuels across the transport ecosystem,” Todd said in the statement. Many of the world’s major airlines have signed SAF sourcing agreements with fuel producers and logistics providers, but it has been slow going. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) expects SAF production to reach 2.1 million metric tons this year, which is just 0.7% of total jet fuel supply. Registry will track SAF across value chain In a move aimed at accelerating the uptake of SAF toward the 2050 net-zero industry target, IATA earlier this year launched the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Registry that will be managed by the Civil Aviation Decarbonization Organization (CADO). The registry will ensure the environmental benefits of SAF can be tracked as they move across the SAF value chain and enable the claiming of those benefits against regulatory obligations and voluntary schemes by airlines and corporate customers. It will also address the challenge of limited SAF supply — which is acutely scarce and available in only a few locations globally — by connecting airlines with SAF producers and suppliers, regardless of their geographic location. While some biofuels are produced sustainably and deliver significant greenhouse gas reductions, there are scalability limitations. Most biofuels are produced from food crop-based feedstocks, which come with direct and indirect deforestation as well as many other sustainability issues ranging from water scarcity to food security. As a result, Europe has excluded the use of feed- and food-based biofuels from its flagship shipping fuels regulation, FuelEU Maritime, that was implemented on Jan. 1. Aviation is part of the European Union’s cap-in-trade emissions trading system that will be reviewed in 2026. Climate activist Transport & Environment (T&E) believes this will be an opportunity for the European Commission to address “a fundamental flaw” in the regulation that only covers flights in Europe. A study by T&E last month estimated that 70% of emissions generated by airlines in 2024 were on intercontinental flights for which airlines were not charged, with the London-New York route topping the list. The study found the European aviation sector has almost fully bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, reaching 96% of 2019 flight numbers and 98% of emissions last year. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Cargolux inks three-year green fuel deal to handle Microsoft cargo

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Excluding the last remnants of Yellow’s revenue, the largest US LTL carriers boosted their top line by 3.9% last year, with daily volumes rising 2.7% and terminal numbers up almost 3%.</div>

Excluding the last remnants of Yellow’s revenue, the largest US LTL carriers boosted their top line by 3.9% last year, with daily volumes rising 2.7% and terminal numbers up almost 3%.

<div class="phx-topic">Bankrupt less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier Yellow has a long reach, although its zombie-like grip on the US LTL market is loosening almost two years after its demise. The combined revenue of the Top 25 US LTL carriers dropped 1.3% to $48.2 billion in 2024, when $2.4 billion of Yellow revenue prior to the company’s July 2023 bankruptcy is included in an annualized comparison by SJ Consulting Group. However, exclude that revenue from Yellow in the first half of 2023 and the Top 25 LTL carriers increased their top line by 3.9% last year, reversing a 13.9% drop in 2023. Higher rates are helping LTL providers generate revenue. Total LTL costs to shippers rose 3% in 2024, according to the US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Since Yellow’s collapse, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-pricing-maintains-record-high-as-truckload-slumps-6008704">the LTL PPI has climbed 12.1%.</a>The largest LTL carrier in the rankings was FedEx Freight — long the largest trucking and LTL company, with $9.1 billion in revenue in calendar year 2024. Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), with $5.8 billion in revenue, and Estes Express Lines, with $5 billion, rounded out the top three. Among the 10 largest LTL providers, Saia rose from eighth in the rankings to sixth, while ABF Freight System took seventh place as TForce Freight dropped from sixth to eighth. Thirteen of the carriers in the annual Top 25 US LTL Carrier rankings produced by SJ Consulting Group and the Journal of Commerce did better than last year’s 3.9% average growth rate, led by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, which increased LTL revenue 15.6%. Knight-Swift did even better in the 2025 first quarter, increasing its revenue 26.7% year over year, when other LTL carriers saw more modest gains or annualized declines in revenue. How the LTL sector does in terms of revenue in 2025 depends on improvements in industrial production and the impact of US tariffs on consumer sentiment — but don’t count LTL growth out. In fact, the Top 25 LTL rankings, published by the Journal of Commerce since 2008, show extraordinary growth by the Top 25 and the overall LTL sector over time. Although total US LTL revenue is down from its $57.8 billion peak in 2022, it is 25.5% higher than the $42.1 billion SJ Consulting Group reported for 2020. The LTL sector’s top line has been above $50 billion for four straight years, SJ Consulting Group data shows. Total LTL revenue rose an unprecedented 37.3% from 2020 through 2022, during the pandemic freight boom. From 2014 through 2024, total LTL revenue rose by more than $17 billion, or 42.9%, the data shows. Revenue at the Top 25 carriers, which account for 91% of all LTL revenue, followed a similar trajectory, rising 41.1% from 2020 through 2022 and 26.1% from 2020 through 2024 despite COVID-19, a freight boom and an almost three-year freight bust. “The LTL market is healthy compared to any other segment of transportation,” Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group, told the Journal of Commerce. “It can remain healthy if they maintain discipline” when it comes to expansion, Jindel said. “They don’t need to add more doors or more terminals when they have more than 20% excess capacity.” <h3>Fastest-growing carriers </h3>In recent years, smaller carriers have been among the fastest-growing LTL carriers. This year, big companies led the way, with Knight-Swift, Estes Express Lines and Saia all increasing revenue by double digits. With its 15.6% revenue gain, Knight-Swift passed the $1 billion milestone for the first time. Much of Knight-Swift’s LTL gain came from the acquisition of Dependable Highway Express (DHE) in July 2024, as the holding company expanded its LTL network to the West. Estes, the largest privately owned LTL carrier, increased its revenue 12.4% to nearly $5 billion and moved up to third place in the SJ Consulting Group/Journal of Commerce rankings. That is a rebound for Estes, which saw revenue drop 4.2% in 2023. Revenue at Saia rose 11.4% last year to $3.2 billion, making it the third-fastest-growing LTL provider. The company kept its foot on the pedal — its top line rose only 3.2% in 2023. “These companies are in a growth mode,” despite a soft freight market, said Jindel. Estes, as a family-owned company, “doesn’t have to worry about Wall Street analysts or investors,” he said. “They can take <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ltl-carriers-expanding-networks-to-prepare-for-long-term-growth-5915148">a long-term view</a> of how to run their business and where they want to expand.” The next companies in the race were national LTL provider R+L Carriers and A. Duie Pyle, a regional company. R+L increased revenue 9.4% while Pyle expanded 8.1%. Altogether, eight carriers grew revenue between 5% and 10%. Another nine companies expanded 0.1% to 5%, while six companies saw revenue drop in 2024, including two of the largest carriers, FedEx Freight and Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL). Revenue decline isn’t necessarily a bad thing for LTL carriers. Often it reflects efforts to rebalance freight mix and the rejection of some lower-priced freight. FedEx Freight had an operating margin in the 15% to 20% range most of 2024, higher than many competitors. And ODFL had an operating ratio of 73.4%, indicating a 26.6% operating margin. <h3>After the ‘gold rush’ </h3>One thing many of the largest LTL providers, especially Estes, XPO, R+L and Saia, had in common: They all bought large numbers of terminals from Yellow in 2023 and 2024. Overall, the Top 25 carriers operated 2,898 terminals in 2024, a 2.9% year-over-year gain. The total terminal count for the entire LTL sector last year was 3,216 facilities, a 2.7% increase over 2023, according to SJ Consulting Group. The Top 25 carriers as a group increased their combined terminal count by a net of 81 facilities in 2024, the research firm’s data shows. And the LTL real estate “gold rush” is not over, although it is slowing. Yellow’s bankruptcy estate plans to sell another 12 terminals this month for more than $20 million, including three terminals that will be delivered to Saia and two to ArcBest. Not all the terminals added to the US LTL network in the past two years have been fully activated, Jindel said. Some carriers are only using a portion of their newly acquired dock doors until freight demand rises. Others have combined nearby terminals, closing smaller facilities. “No one needs to add more terminals right now the way the market is,” he said. “Carriers have the ability to handle more freight within their existing networks.” <h3>Average daily shipments </h3>Surprisingly, despite a soft market and volume declines at some public companies, the average daily shipment (ADS) count rose 2.7% for the Top 25 carriers as a group last year, reaching 586,545 shipments per day. That’s more than 200 million shipments a year, excluding holidays, which may vary from company to company. The total LTL sector ADS count rose 2.5% from 2023 to 669,545 shipments a day. On average, the Top 25 carriers moved 202 shipments per terminal each day in 2024, just six shipments fewer than the ADS-per-terminal ratio for the LTL sector as a whole. FedEx Freight had the highest ADS count per day with an average of 98,905 shipments moving through 326 terminals, for an average ADS-per-terminal rate of 303 shipments. R+L Carriers, ranked fifth among the Top 25, had the second-largest ADS count of 61,000 shipments, with an average of 473 ADS per terminal. R+L is a long-distance carrier with 129 terminals, fewer intermediate terminals than many nationwide competitors.Daylight Transport, a long-distance carrier moving LTL shipments inland from the West Coast, operates only eight terminals but had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 433 last year. Regional LTL provider A. Duie Pyle had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 402, with 30 terminals in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and an ADS count of 12,062, SJ Consulting Group reported. In contrast, national carrier ABF Freight, an ArcBest subsidiary, had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 90 last year, with 220 terminals and 19,856 ADS. TForce Freight, formerly UPS Freight, had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 115 with 192 terminals and 22,122 ADS. Many companies with a low ADS-per-terminal rate could move more freight without adding more terminals, Jindel said. But a low ADS-per-terminal rate doesn’t always indicate a lack of efficiency. Instead, it may reflect the structure of a carrier’s network. Cross Country Freight Solutions, which came in 21st in the rankings with $219 million in revenue last year, had 51 terminals and an ADS count of 2,900 shipments, giving it an ADS-per-terminal rate of 88. “They have smaller terminals, but they cover a very large geography, from the Mississippi River to the West Coast and from Canada to Mexico,” Jindel said. With such an expansive territory, “they need the terminals,” he said. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.<div class="wrapper-full"><table><colgroup><col width="10.65%"></col><col width="25.91%"></col><col width="11.9%"></col><col width="11.9%"></col><col width="10.23%"></col><col width="21.01%"></col><col width="8.4%"></col></colgroup><caption>Journal of Commerce Top 25 US Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) CarriersAnnual revenue, including fuel surcharges, in millions of US dollars; average daily shipments in 2024; and number of terminals as Dec. 31, 2024</caption><thead><tr><th>2024 Rank</th><th>Carrier</th><th>2023 Revenue</th><th>2024 Revenue</th><th>YoY Change</th><th>Average Daily Shipments</th><th>Terminals</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="align-right">1</td><td>FedEx Freight</td><td class="align-right">$9,106</td><td class="align-right">$9,098</td><td class="align-right">-0.1%</td><td class="align-right">98,905</td><td class="align-right">326</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">2</td><td>Old Dominion Freight Line</td><td class="align-right">$5,805</td><td class="align-right">$5,761</td><td class="align-right">-0.8%</td><td class="align-right">47,288</td><td class="align-right">261</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">3</td><td>Estes Express Lines</td><td class="align-right">$4,432</td><td class="align-right">$4,981</td><td class="align-right">12.4%</td><td class="align-right">53,744</td><td class="align-right">224</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">4</td><td>XPO Logistics</td><td class="align-right">$4,671</td><td class="align-right">$4,899</td><td class="align-right">4.9%</td><td class="align-right">49,109</td><td class="align-right">303</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">5</td><td>R+L Carriers</td><td class="align-right">$3,493</td><td class="align-right">$3,820</td><td class="align-right">9.4%</td><td class="align-right">61,000</td><td class="align-right">129</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">6</td><td>Saia Motor Freight Line</td><td class="align-right">$2,881</td><td class="align-right">$3,209</td><td class="align-right">11.4%</td><td class="align-right">35,390</td><td class="align-right">218</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">7</td><td>ABF Freight System</td><td class="align-right">$2,810</td><td class="align-right">$2,690</td><td class="align-right">-4.3%</td><td class="align-right">19,856</td><td class="align-right">220</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">8</td><td>TForce Freight (US only)</td><td class="align-right">$2,375</td><td class="align-right">$2,490</td><td class="align-right">4.8%</td><td class="align-right">22,122</td><td class="align-right">192</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">9</td><td>Southeastern Freight Lines</td><td class="align-right">$1,685</td><td class="align-right">$1,700</td><td class="align-right">0.9%</td><td class="align-right">33,887</td><td class="align-right">87</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">10</td><td>Central Transport Int'l1</td><td class="align-right">$1,542</td><td class="align-right">$1,628</td><td class="align-right">5.6%</td><td class="align-right">24,400</td><td class="align-right">203</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">11</td><td>Averitt Express</td><td class="align-right">$1,165</td><td class="align-right">$1,149</td><td class="align-right">-1.4%</td><td class="align-right">18,169</td><td class="align-right">82</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">12</td><td>Knight-Swift LTL2</td><td class="align-right">$924</td><td class="align-right">$1,068</td><td class="align-right">15.6%</td><td class="align-right">18,805</td><td class="align-right">166</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">13</td><td>Dayton Freight Lines</td><td class="align-right">$1,035</td><td class="align-right">$1,043</td><td class="align-right">0.8%</td><td class="align-right">22,306</td><td class="align-right">68</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">14</td><td>Forward Air</td><td class="align-right">$937</td><td class="align-right">$945</td><td class="align-right">0.9%</td><td class="align-right">13,100</td><td class="align-right">107</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">14</td><td>Pitt Ohio Transportation Group</td><td class="align-right">$909</td><td class="align-right">$939</td><td class="align-right">3.3%</td><td class="align-right">21,286</td><td class="align-right">54</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">16</td><td>A. Duie Pyle1</td><td class="align-right">$570</td><td class="align-right">$616</td><td class="align-right">8.1%</td><td class="align-right">12,062</td><td class="align-right">30</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">17</td><td>Roadrunner Transportation1</td><td class="align-right">$410</td><td class="align-right">$436</td><td class="align-right">6.3%</td><td class="align-right">5,250</td><td class="align-right">31</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">18</td><td>Daylight Transport</td><td class="align-right">$374</td><td class="align-right">$393</td><td class="align-right">5.1%</td><td class="align-right">3,460</td><td class="align-right">8</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">19</td><td>Oak Harbor Freight Lines1</td><td class="align-right">$320</td><td class="align-right">$342</td><td class="align-right">6.9%</td><td class="align-right">5,444</td><td class="align-right">40</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">20</td><td>Ward Trucking Corporation</td><td class="align-right">$253</td><td class="align-right">$258</td><td class="align-right">2.0%</td><td class="align-right">4,688</td><td class="align-right">24</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">21</td><td>Cross Country Freight Solutions</td><td class="align-right">$207</td><td class="align-right">$219</td><td class="align-right">5.8%</td><td class="align-right">4,500</td><td class="align-right">51</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">22</td><td>Magnum LTL</td><td class="align-right">$155</td><td class="align-right">$164</td><td class="align-right">5.8%</td><td class="align-right">3,500</td><td class="align-right">31</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">23</td><td>Sutton Transport1</td><td class="align-right">$123</td><td class="align-right">$115</td><td class="align-right">-6.5%</td><td class="align-right">3,550</td><td class="align-right">13</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">24</td><td>Peninsula Truck Lines</td><td class="align-right">$102</td><td class="align-right">$103</td><td class="align-right">1.0%</td><td class="align-right">1,824</td><td class="align-right">16</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">25</td><td>Standard Forwarding1</td><td class="align-right">$98</td><td class="align-right">$100</td><td class="align-right">2.0%</td><td class="align-right">2,900</td><td class="align-right">14</td></tr><tr class="phx-row-total"><td colspan="2">Total Top 25 US LTL Carriers</td><td class="align-right">$48,805</td><td class="align-right">$48,166</td><td class="align-right">-1.3%</td><td class="align-right">586,545</td><td class="align-right">2,898</td></tr><tr class="phx-row-total"><td colspan="2">Total US LTL Market</td><td class="align-right">$53,206</td><td class="align-right">$52,819</td><td class="align-right">-0.7%</td><td class="align-right">669,545</td><td class="align-right">3,216</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="7">1 SJ Consulting estimates</td></tr><tr><td colspan="7">2 Includes ACT, MME and DHE acquisitions and growth from new terminal openings</td></tr><tr class="phx-table-source"><td colspan="7">Sources: Company reports and SJ Consulting estimates. Prepared by SJ Consulting Group, Inc.© 2025 S&amp;P Global.</td></tr></tfoot></table></div></div>

Bankrupt less-than-truckload (LTL) carrier Yellow has a long reach, although its zombie-like grip on the US LTL market is loosening almost two years after its demise. The combined revenue of the Top 25 US LTL carriers dropped 1.3% to $48.2 billion in 2024, when $2.4 billion of Yellow revenue prior to the company’s July 2023 bankruptcy is included in an annualized comparison by SJ Consulting Group. However, exclude that revenue from Yellow in the first half of 2023 and the Top 25 LTL carriers increased their top line by 3.9% last year, reversing a 13.9% drop in 2023. Higher rates are helping LTL providers generate revenue. Total LTL costs to shippers rose 3% in 2024, according to the US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Since Yellow’s collapse, the LTL PPI has climbed 12.1%. The largest LTL carrier in the rankings was FedEx Freight — long the largest trucking and LTL company, with $9.1 billion in revenue in calendar year 2024. Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), with $5.8 billion in revenue, and Estes Express Lines, with $5 billion, rounded out the top three. Among the 10 largest LTL providers, Saia rose from eighth in the rankings to sixth, while ABF Freight System took seventh place as TForce Freight dropped from sixth to eighth. Thirteen of the carriers in the annual Top 25 US LTL Carrier rankings produced by SJ Consulting Group and the Journal of Commerce did better than last year’s 3.9% average growth rate, led by Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, which increased LTL revenue 15.6%. Knight-Swift did even better in the 2025 first quarter, increasing its revenue 26.7% year over year, when other LTL carriers saw more modest gains or annualized declines in revenue. How the LTL sector does in terms of revenue in 2025 depends on improvements in industrial production and the impact of US tariffs on consumer sentiment — but don’t count LTL growth out. In fact, the Top 25 LTL rankings, published by the Journal of Commerce since 2008, show extraordinary growth by the Top 25 and the overall LTL sector over time. Although total US LTL revenue is down from its $57.8 billion peak in 2022, it is 25.5% higher than the $42.1 billion SJ Consulting Group reported for 2020. The LTL sector’s top line has been above $50 billion for four straight years, SJ Consulting Group data shows. Total LTL revenue rose an unprecedented 37.3% from 2020 through 2022, during the pandemic freight boom. From 2014 through 2024, total LTL revenue rose by more than $17 billion, or 42.9%, the data shows. Revenue at the Top 25 carriers, which account for 91% of all LTL revenue, followed a similar trajectory, rising 41.1% from 2020 through 2022 and 26.1% from 2020 through 2024 despite COVID-19, a freight boom and an almost three-year freight bust. “The LTL market is healthy compared to any other segment of transportation,” Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting Group, told the Journal of Commerce. “It can remain healthy if they maintain discipline” when it comes to expansion, Jindel said. “They don’t need to add more doors or more terminals when they have more than 20% excess capacity.” Fastest-growing carriers In recent years, smaller carriers have been among the fastest-growing LTL carriers. This year, big companies led the way, with Knight-Swift, Estes Express Lines and Saia all increasing revenue by double digits. With its 15.6% revenue gain, Knight-Swift passed the $1 billion milestone for the first time. Much of Knight-Swift’s LTL gain came from the acquisition of Dependable Highway Express (DHE) in July 2024, as the holding company expanded its LTL network to the West. Estes, the largest privately owned LTL carrier, increased its revenue 12.4% to nearly $5 billion and moved up to third place in the SJ Consulting Group/Journal of Commerce rankings. That is a rebound for Estes, which saw revenue drop 4.2% in 2023. Revenue at Saia rose 11.4% last year to $3.2 billion, making it the third-fastest-growing LTL provider. The company kept its foot on the pedal — its top line rose only 3.2% in 2023. “These companies are in a growth mode,” despite a soft freight market, said Jindel. Estes, as a family-owned company, “doesn’t have to worry about Wall Street analysts or investors,” he said. “They can take a long-term view of how to run their business and where they want to expand.” The next companies in the race were national LTL provider R+L Carriers and A. Duie Pyle, a regional company. R+L increased revenue 9.4% while Pyle expanded 8.1%. Altogether, eight carriers grew revenue between 5% and 10%. Another nine companies expanded 0.1% to 5%, while six companies saw revenue drop in 2024, including two of the largest carriers, FedEx Freight and Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL). Revenue decline isn’t necessarily a bad thing for LTL carriers. Often it reflects efforts to rebalance freight mix and the rejection of some lower-priced freight. FedEx Freight had an operating margin in the 15% to 20% range most of 2024, higher than many competitors. And ODFL had an operating ratio of 73.4%, indicating a 26.6% operating margin. After the ‘gold rush’ One thing many of the largest LTL providers, especially Estes, XPO, R+L and Saia, had in common: They all bought large numbers of terminals from Yellow in 2023 and 2024. Overall, the Top 25 carriers operated 2,898 terminals in 2024, a 2.9% year-over-year gain. The total terminal count for the entire LTL sector last year was 3,216 facilities, a 2.7% increase over 2023, according to SJ Consulting Group. The Top 25 carriers as a group increased their combined terminal count by a net of 81 facilities in 2024, the research firm’s data shows. And the LTL real estate “gold rush” is not over, although it is slowing. Yellow’s bankruptcy estate plans to sell another 12 terminals this month for more than $20 million, including three terminals that will be delivered to Saia and two to ArcBest. Not all the terminals added to the US LTL network in the past two years have been fully activated, Jindel said. Some carriers are only using a portion of their newly acquired dock doors until freight demand rises. Others have combined nearby terminals, closing smaller facilities. “No one needs to add more terminals right now the way the market is,” he said. “Carriers have the ability to handle more freight within their existing networks.” Average daily shipments Surprisingly, despite a soft market and volume declines at some public companies, the average daily shipment (ADS) count rose 2.7% for the Top 25 carriers as a group last year, reaching 586,545 shipments per day. That’s more than 200 million shipments a year, excluding holidays, which may vary from company to company. The total LTL sector ADS count rose 2.5% from 2023 to 669,545 shipments a day. On average, the Top 25 carriers moved 202 shipments per terminal each day in 2024, just six shipments fewer than the ADS-per-terminal ratio for the LTL sector as a whole. FedEx Freight had the highest ADS count per day with an average of 98,905 shipments moving through 326 terminals, for an average ADS-per-terminal rate of 303 shipments. R+L Carriers, ranked fifth among the Top 25, had the second-largest ADS count of 61,000 shipments, with an average of 473 ADS per terminal. R+L is a long-distance carrier with 129 terminals, fewer intermediate terminals than many nationwide competitors. Daylight Transport, a long-distance carrier moving LTL shipments inland from the West Coast, operates only eight terminals but had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 433 last year. Regional LTL provider A. Duie Pyle had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 402, with 30 terminals in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic and an ADS count of 12,062, SJ Consulting Group reported. In contrast, national carrier ABF Freight, an ArcBest subsidiary, had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 90 last year, with 220 terminals and 19,856 ADS. TForce Freight, formerly UPS Freight, had an ADS-per-terminal rate of 115 with 192 terminals and 22,122 ADS. Many companies with a low ADS-per-terminal rate could move more freight without adding more terminals, Jindel said. But a low ADS-per-terminal rate doesn’t always indicate a lack of efficiency. Instead, it may reflect the structure of a carrier’s network. Cross Country Freight Solutions, which came in 21st in the rankings with $219 million in revenue last year, had 51 terminals and an ADS count of 2,900 shipments, giving it an ADS-per-terminal rate of 88. “They have smaller terminals, but they cover a very large geography, from the Mississippi River to the West Coast and from Canada to Mexico,” Jindel said. With such an expansive territory, “they need the terminals,” he said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .Journal of Commerce Top 25 US Less-Than-Truckload (LTL) Carriers Annual revenue, including fuel surcharges, in millions of US dollars; average daily shipments in 2024; and number of terminals as Dec. 31, 2024 2024 Rank Carrier 2023 Revenue 2024 Revenue YoY Change Average Daily Shipments Terminals 1 FedEx Freight $9,106 $9,098 -0.1% 98,905 326 2 Old Dominion Freight Line $5,805 $5,761 -0.8% 47,288 261 3 Estes Express Lines $4,432 $4,981 12.4% 53,744 224 4 XPO Logistics $4,671 $4,899 4.9% 49,109 303 5 R+L Carriers $3,493 $3,820 9.4% 61,000 129 6 Saia Motor Freight Line $2,881 $3,209 11.4% 35,390 218 7 ABF Freight System $2,810 $2,690 -4.3% 19,856 220 8 TForce Freight (US only) $2,375 $2,490 4.8% 22,122 192 9 Southeastern Freight Lines $1,685 $1,700 0.9% 33,887 87 10 Central Transport Int'l1 $1,542 $1,628 5.6% 24,400 203 11 Averitt Express $1,165 $1,149 -1.4% 18,169 82 12 Knight-Swift LTL2 $924 $1,068 15.6% 18,805 166 13 Dayton Freight Lines $1,035 $1,043 0.8% 22,306 68 14 Forward Air $937 $945 0.9% 13,100 107 14 Pitt Ohio Transportation Group $909 $939 3.3% 21,286 54 16 A. Duie Pyle1 $570 $616 8.1% 12,062 30 17 Roadrunner Transportation1 $410 $436 6.3% 5,250 31 18 Daylight Transport $374 $393 5.1% 3,460 8 19 Oak Harbor Freight Lines1 $320 $342 6.9% 5,444 40 20 Ward Trucking Corporation $253 $258 2.0% 4,688 24 21 Cross Country Freight Solutions $207 $219 5.8% 4,500 51 22 Magnum LTL $155 $164 5.8% 3,500 31 23 Sutton Transport1 $123 $115 -6.5% 3,550 13 24 Peninsula Truck Lines $102 $103 1.0% 1,824 16 25 Standard Forwarding1 $98 $100 2.0% 2,900 14 Total Top 25 US LTL Carriers $48,805 $48,166 -1.3% 586,545 2,898 Total US LTL Market $53,206 $52,819 -0.7% 669,545 3,216 1 SJ Consulting estimates 2 Includes ACT, MME and DHE acquisitions and growth from new terminal openings Sources: Company reports and SJ Consulting estimates. Prepared by SJ Consulting Group, Inc. © 2025 S&P Global.

Journal of Commerce Rankings: US LTL sector defies soft demand, regains traction

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Cedar Port industrial park and barge port says the construction of a new ship channel could pave the way for potential development of a container terminal at the site.</div>

The Cedar Port industrial park and barge port says the construction of a new ship channel could pave the way for potential development of a container terminal at the site.

<div class="phx-topic">A Houston-area industrial park and barge port is moving ahead with early plans to develop a $1 billion container terminal at the site that, if built, would double the area’s existing container capacity. The next step for operators of the park and port, known as Cedar Port, is to provide the appropriate state and federal environmental agencies with the findings of a feasibility study that was undertaken to map out the logistics of dredging a new shipping channel between the existing Houston Ship Channel and Cedar Port. “We are literally drafting the final [feasibility and environmental] findings, and that’s what will get published in June in the final Federal Register,” Clayton Henderson, Cedar Port’s director of port development, told the Journal of Commerce. If the dredging project is granted Congressional approval next year and the container terminal project receives all necessary permitting, it could be completed as early as 2032, Cedar Port officials said. Cedar Port Industrial Park consists of 15,000 acres, about 10,000 of which are still undeveloped. The proposed $500-million Cedar Port Terminal Channel Deepening Project — which would be executed under the authority of the US Army Corps of Engineers — would enable a potential Cedar Port container terminal to host vessels up to approximately 15,000 TEUs in size. The new ship channel would be dredged to a depth of 50 feet, matching the nearby Port Houston. Still, key facets of the proposed project remain unclear, including funding sources and who would ultimately operate the port. One potential partner would be Port Houston, which has been considering its own growth plans. “Port Houston has been investigating alternatives for future expansion of Port Houston container operations, including further optimization of our existing terminals and a potential third container terminal complex,” the port told the Journal of Commerce. “As part of this long-range planning, Cedar Port is one potential option that the Port Houston team has been examining.” If the Cedar Port container terminal comes to fruition independently of Port Houston, Cedar Port’s additional container capacity would effectively compete with Port Houston for volumes. Either way, Henderson said expected container volume growth in the region over the next decade will require capacity expansion. “There is so much between now and then,” Henderson said, referring to the timeline for the terminal. “We anticipate 2032 [to open] would be about the earliest, to 2035. This is the timeframe we estimate a terminal could be operational, and that seems to correlate with when the market will need an extra 5 million TEUs — to use round numbers — that will need a home somewhere based on current capabilities.” Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

A Houston-area industrial park and barge port is moving ahead with early plans to develop a $1 billion container terminal at the site that, if built, would double the area’s existing container capacity. The next step for operators of the park and port, known as Cedar Port, is to provide the appropriate state and federal environmental agencies with the findings of a feasibility study that was undertaken to map out the logistics of dredging a new shipping channel between the existing Houston Ship Channel and Cedar Port. “We are literally drafting the final [feasibility and environmental] findings, and that’s what will get published in June in the final Federal Register,” Clayton Henderson, Cedar Port’s director of port development, told the Journal of Commerce. If the dredging project is granted Congressional approval next year and the container terminal project receives all necessary permitting, it could be completed as early as 2032, Cedar Port officials said. Cedar Port Industrial Park consists of 15,000 acres, about 10,000 of which are still undeveloped. The proposed $500-million Cedar Port Terminal Channel Deepening Project — which would be executed under the authority of the US Army Corps of Engineers — would enable a potential Cedar Port container terminal to host vessels up to approximately 15,000 TEUs in size. The new ship channel would be dredged to a depth of 50 feet, matching the nearby Port Houston. Still, key facets of the proposed project remain unclear, including funding sources and who would ultimately operate the port. One potential partner would be Port Houston, which has been considering its own growth plans. “Port Houston has been investigating alternatives for future expansion of Port Houston container operations, including further optimization of our existing terminals and a potential third container terminal complex,” the port told the Journal of Commerce. “As part of this long-range planning, Cedar Port is one potential option that the Port Houston team has been examining.” If the Cedar Port container terminal comes to fruition independently of Port Houston, Cedar Port’s additional container capacity would effectively compete with Port Houston for volumes. Either way, Henderson said expected container volume growth in the region over the next decade will require capacity expansion. “There is so much between now and then,” Henderson said, referring to the timeline for the terminal. “We anticipate 2032 [to open] would be about the earliest, to 2035. This is the timeframe we estimate a terminal could be operational, and that seems to correlate with when the market will need an extra 5 million TEUs — to use round numbers — that will need a home somewhere based on current capabilities.” Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Container Shipping News

North American ports

Port News

Stakeholders look to advance possible Houston-area dredging project

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Trump administration’s tariff policy is yet another milestone that has shaken the US economy over the past 60 years, writes Ted Prince. </div>

The Trump administration’s tariff policy is yet another milestone that has shaken the US economy over the past 60 years, writes Ted Prince.

<div class="phx-topic">Since the announcement of reciprocal tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day” last month, we have been bombarded by conflicting predictions of the possible benefits and disasters that may befall our country, our economy and our industry. What I find interesting is that the history of the past 60 years seems to have been forgotten. While there are many important dates, I will focus on four. <h3>Yanqui go home! </h3>I would start in April 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Marines and 82nd Airborne to the Dominican Republic to quell a civil war that broke out after a military junta. While the intervention was intended to protect US nationals, mission creep led to the deployment of over 22,000 American troops. While the invasion successfully reinstalled a conservative government, it increased distrust of the US. At the same time, companies such as Hewlett Packard were rolling out a continuous pipeline of electronic innovations. Their intention was to near-shore manufacturing in Latin America; however, the prevalence of “Yanqui Go Home!” made them look elsewhere. Japan and then the “Four Tigers” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) became the factory sites instead. The Vietnam War had become the first containerized war, and plentiful equipment was available to load back to the US. While electronics required factories, much of the manufacturing was cottage industries. For example, importers of blue jeans were buying from hundreds of small vendors. Ocean carrier consolidators would send pickup trucks into the New Territories to pick up loose articles of clothing (some which no doubt had been made in China) for consolidation at their facilities adjacent to the Kwai Tsing container terminals. <h3>Voluntary restraint </h3>In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to “voluntary export restraint,” which limited exports of passenger cars to the US. However, at the same time, they implemented a strategy of “transplants,” whereby cars were assembled in the US. Some might consider this an example of “reshoring;” however, it is not that simple. Initially, the plants were built in Japan, then disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled. Most of the parts (CKD: cars knocked down) came from Japan, so actual US content — other than labor — was minimal. Over time, suppliers proliferated along Interstates 65 and 75 to support these plants. However, many of these were also Japanese transplants. Some were joint ventures with US partners, but many were just US subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturers. Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison described this phenomenon in their 1982 work, “The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.” They pointed out the irony that the Japanese were successfully investing in US industrial sectors that scarcely a decade ago were said to be declining, uncompetitive, and suffering from deindustrialization. <h3>The Plaza Accord </h3>The Plaza Accord in September 1985 effectively devalued the dollar against other major currencies. Initially, the US trade deficit worsened, as imports rose in price with a devalued dollar. However, the devaluation made US exports cheaper for its trading partners to purchase, which grew the market in goods and services — which are unaccounted for in the current administration’s calculation. <h3>China and the WTO </h3>Finally, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). What followed was a massive dislocation in trade as China built world-class factories and world-class ports to ship goods throughout the world. Some of those factories have since relocated to nations with cheaper labor. However, a whole ecosystem of suppliers has grown up that supports the manufacturing and assembly of sophisticated products. China’s development took over 30 years. It was no shortcut. It was also the result of extensive industrial policy similar to what Japan and the Four Tigers had done previously. Most importantly, these policies did not deviate for decades and supported a long-term strategy whereby investment could be made with confidence. Our current politics are such that it is impossible to invest in today’s doctrine because it may no longer be applicable by the time the factory opens in three to eight years. In the past 30 years, trade has increased dramatically as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). However, while most economists believe that this has been good for the economy, the general public’s outlook is less sanguine. In large part, this is because trade’s impacts can vary widely: localized changes in jobs (both gains and losses) and reduced prices of goods and services. Freight is inextricably linked to trade. It has transformed our industry. We will no doubt have a ringside seat to the policy that is evolving. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>. </div>

Since the announcement of reciprocal tariffs on so-called “Liberation Day” last month, we have been bombarded by conflicting predictions of the possible benefits and disasters that may befall our country, our economy and our industry. What I find interesting is that the history of the past 60 years seems to have been forgotten. While there are many important dates, I will focus on four. Yanqui go home! I would start in April 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson deployed the Marines and 82nd Airborne to the Dominican Republic to quell a civil war that broke out after a military junta. While the intervention was intended to protect US nationals, mission creep led to the deployment of over 22,000 American troops. While the invasion successfully reinstalled a conservative government, it increased distrust of the US. At the same time, companies such as Hewlett Packard were rolling out a continuous pipeline of electronic innovations. Their intention was to near-shore manufacturing in Latin America; however, the prevalence of “Yanqui Go Home!” made them look elsewhere. Japan and then the “Four Tigers” (Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea) became the factory sites instead. The Vietnam War had become the first containerized war, and plentiful equipment was available to load back to the US. While electronics required factories, much of the manufacturing was cottage industries. For example, importers of blue jeans were buying from hundreds of small vendors. Ocean carrier consolidators would send pickup trucks into the New Territories to pick up loose articles of clothing (some which no doubt had been made in China) for consolidation at their facilities adjacent to the Kwai Tsing container terminals. Voluntary restraint In May 1981, with the American auto industry mired in recession, Japanese car makers agreed to “voluntary export restraint,” which limited exports of passenger cars to the US. However, at the same time, they implemented a strategy of “transplants,” whereby cars were assembled in the US. Some might consider this an example of “reshoring;” however, it is not that simple. Initially, the plants were built in Japan, then disassembled, shipped to the US, and reassembled. Most of the parts (CKD: cars knocked down) came from Japan, so actual US content — other than labor — was minimal. Over time, suppliers proliferated along Interstates 65 and 75 to support these plants. However, many of these were also Japanese transplants. Some were joint ventures with US partners, but many were just US subsidiaries of Japanese manufacturers. Barry Bluestone and Bennett Harrison described this phenomenon in their 1982 work, “The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment, and the Dismantling of Basic Industry.” They pointed out the irony that the Japanese were successfully investing in US industrial sectors that scarcely a decade ago were said to be declining, uncompetitive, and suffering from deindustrialization. The Plaza Accord The Plaza Accord in September 1985 effectively devalued the dollar against other major currencies. Initially, the US trade deficit worsened, as imports rose in price with a devalued dollar. However, the devaluation made US exports cheaper for its trading partners to purchase, which grew the market in goods and services — which are unaccounted for in the current administration’s calculation. China and the WTO Finally, in 2001, China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO). What followed was a massive dislocation in trade as China built world-class factories and world-class ports to ship goods throughout the world. Some of those factories have since relocated to nations with cheaper labor. However, a whole ecosystem of suppliers has grown up that supports the manufacturing and assembly of sophisticated products. China’s development took over 30 years. It was no shortcut. It was also the result of extensive industrial policy similar to what Japan and the Four Tigers had done previously. Most importantly, these policies did not deviate for decades and supported a long-term strategy whereby investment could be made with confidence. Our current politics are such that it is impossible to invest in today’s doctrine because it may no longer be applicable by the time the factory opens in three to eight years. In the past 30 years, trade has increased dramatically as a share of gross domestic product (GDP). However, while most economists believe that this has been good for the economy, the general public’s outlook is less sanguine. In large part, this is because trade’s impacts can vary widely: localized changes in jobs (both gains and losses) and reduced prices of goods and services. Freight is inextricably linked to trade. It has transformed our industry. We will no doubt have a ringside seat to the policy that is evolving. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Supply chain

A history lesson while we watch current US trade policy unfold

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The new global trade environment has significantly increased supply chain challenges, notably the arbitrary nature of the implementation of US tariffs.</div>

The new global trade environment has significantly increased supply chain challenges, notably the arbitrary nature of the implementation of US tariffs.

<div class="phx-topic">This commentary is not specifically about tariffs, or about capacity shortages or surpluses or what to expect if your shipment happens to be transferred to a Chinese vessel or service — whatever that means today. Instead, it considers a related question: How do supply chain practitioners balance demand and supply planning in the current environment of uncertainty? To start, let’s assume you are a medium-size importer into the US from any Asian country subject to tariffs nominally above 20%. At this stage, you have called on the more recent lessons from the first term of Donald Trump and from the COVID-19 pandemic. These will include, but are not limited to, some form of cost-sharing of the increase, somewhere between you absorbing it all to the supplier wearing the whole lot. If you are buying in US dollars, then your supplier is already suffering and will have less room to maneuver. To counter this, a temporary option could be to switch to buying in your supplier’s local currency. This will have some appeal to your supplier as they are possibly overweight in the dollar and have actual costs in local currency. A lot will depend on your view of the trajectory of the dollar. However, two notes of caution: You will still have transaction costs when converting from the US dollar to the local currency, and depending on the country you source from, you may face capital controls if you need to get money back. Furthermore, changing back and forth in currencies has administrative risks with potential payment delays and errors. No doubt there will be a suggestion of suppliers providing lower-than-correct value invoices and some form of offline reconciliation. But doing the right thing in the face of malevolence has its longer-term reward. And besides, the penalties do not merit the risk. <h3>‘Roulette game’ </h3>You will have reduced your destination-side inventory to the degree of ensuring safety stocks. If you managed to get ahead of the tariff increases, you will be sitting on volume that requires warehousing. But as you have avoided tariffs to some degree, this will maintain your competitiveness — despite the increased warehousing and inventory working capital cost — assuming your competitors source from outside the US However, the new environment has significantly increased challenges. First, the rate at which tariff levels are changing makes supply planning a roulette game. This is primarily due to the arbitrary nature of their implementation, unlike previous changes that gave some degree of leeway for orders already in process and/or on the water. Equally challenging is the rollercoaster nature of the degree of tariff moves both up and down. Finally, the tactical response <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">to avoid Chinese-built, -owned, and -operated ships</a> will be a nightmare for all logisticians. This is particularly important because carrier and vessel choice is largely transactional at an operational level based on guidance from sourcing, so the likelihood of an error costing thousands is high. Where does that leave beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) in deciding which tactics to adopt? Frankly, for the foreseeable future, you will need to choose your poison. The somewhat binary options of manufacturing and storing at origin have appeal, particularly if the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/air-cargo-volumes-fall-on-trans-pacific-as-us-de-minimis-changes-loom-5993599">removal of de minimis</a> has a projected impact of freeing up air freight space, allowing cheaper (but not cheap) delivery for urgent orders. Alternatively, having the right stocks in place at the right time will do much for customer relations and, intuitively, result in less likelihood of discounting. The downside will be increased costs that will depend on the cost of the tariff versus your sale price. This will mean you either absorb the increase, thus reducing margins and profitability, or try to pass it on to consumers. The final kicker to this issue is consumer demand. With quite consistent indicators from many sources — Goldman Sachs, the International Monetary Fund, the University of Michigan and others— indicating at best a slowdown in all economies, the likelihood of stagflation emerging in the US, or at best/worst the return of inflation, is actually your greatest risk. Because if consumers truly defer consumption expecting lower prices through price reduction and/or discounting to stimulate demand (stagflation), or cannot afford to spend or increase credit card debt (inflation), then these two factors will cause greater headaches than your deliberations on supply planning. John McCauley, formerly a long-standing 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>

This commentary is not specifically about tariffs, or about capacity shortages or surpluses or what to expect if your shipment happens to be transferred to a Chinese vessel or service — whatever that means today. Instead, it considers a related question: How do supply chain practitioners balance demand and supply planning in the current environment of uncertainty? To start, let’s assume you are a medium-size importer into the US from any Asian country subject to tariffs nominally above 20%. At this stage, you have called on the more recent lessons from the first term of Donald Trump and from the COVID-19 pandemic. These will include, but are not limited to, some form of cost-sharing of the increase, somewhere between you absorbing it all to the supplier wearing the whole lot. If you are buying in US dollars, then your supplier is already suffering and will have less room to maneuver. To counter this, a temporary option could be to switch to buying in your supplier’s local currency. This will have some appeal to your supplier as they are possibly overweight in the dollar and have actual costs in local currency. A lot will depend on your view of the trajectory of the dollar. However, two notes of caution: You will still have transaction costs when converting from the US dollar to the local currency, and depending on the country you source from, you may face capital controls if you need to get money back. Furthermore, changing back and forth in currencies has administrative risks with potential payment delays and errors. No doubt there will be a suggestion of suppliers providing lower-than-correct value invoices and some form of offline reconciliation. But doing the right thing in the face of malevolence has its longer-term reward. And besides, the penalties do not merit the risk. ‘Roulette game’ You will have reduced your destination-side inventory to the degree of ensuring safety stocks. If you managed to get ahead of the tariff increases, you will be sitting on volume that requires warehousing. But as you have avoided tariffs to some degree, this will maintain your competitiveness — despite the increased warehousing and inventory working capital cost — assuming your competitors source from outside the US However, the new environment has significantly increased challenges. First, the rate at which tariff levels are changing makes supply planning a roulette game. This is primarily due to the arbitrary nature of their implementation, unlike previous changes that gave some degree of leeway for orders already in process and/or on the water. Equally challenging is the rollercoaster nature of the degree of tariff moves both up and down. Finally, the tactical response to avoid Chinese-built, -owned, and -operated ships will be a nightmare for all logisticians. This is particularly important because carrier and vessel choice is largely transactional at an operational level based on guidance from sourcing, so the likelihood of an error costing thousands is high. Where does that leave beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) in deciding which tactics to adopt? Frankly, for the foreseeable future, you will need to choose your poison. The somewhat binary options of manufacturing and storing at origin have appeal, particularly if the removal of de minimis has a projected impact of freeing up air freight space, allowing cheaper (but not cheap) delivery for urgent orders. Alternatively, having the right stocks in place at the right time will do much for customer relations and, intuitively, result in less likelihood of discounting. The downside will be increased costs that will depend on the cost of the tariff versus your sale price. This will mean you either absorb the increase, thus reducing margins and profitability, or try to pass it on to consumers. The final kicker to this issue is consumer demand. With quite consistent indicators from many sources — Goldman Sachs, the International Monetary Fund, the University of Michigan and others— indicating at best a slowdown in all economies, the likelihood of stagflation emerging in the US, or at best/worst the return of inflation, is actually your greatest risk. Because if consumers truly defer consumption expecting lower prices through price reduction and/or discounting to stimulate demand (stagflation), or cannot afford to spend or increase credit card debt (inflation), then these two factors will cause greater headaches than your deliberations on supply planning. John McCauley, formerly a long-standing vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

Navigating the current supply chain is a matter of choosing your poison

Local container dwell time

Rail container dwell time

The Pacific Merchant Shipping Association (PMSA) calculates local-delivery container dwell times at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach using the number of inbound loaded containers out-gated at each marine terminal by truck during the month as well as the average dwell time in days for those out-gated containers. It calculates average rail container dwell based on the time a container sits on the marine terminal at the ports after it is discharged from the vessel and before it is loaded. [PMSA](https://pmsaship.com)

Los Angeles-Long Beach truck and rail dwell times (PMSA)

Los Angeles-Long Beach terminal and rail dwell times (PMSA) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Forwarders expect congestion and container shortages to worsen in the next few weeks as carriers redeploy vessels to trans-Pacific services from Asia-Europe trades to meet increased demand from shippers.</div>

Forwarders expect congestion and container shortages to worsen in the next few weeks as carriers redeploy vessels to trans-Pacific services from Asia-Europe trades to meet increased demand from shippers.

<div class="phx-topic">A rush of cargo in the eastbound trans-Pacific in the aftermath of the 90-day tariff cooldown between the US and China is starting to create vessel congestion and equipment shortages at Asian ports, especially in China, carriers and forwarders say. Forwarders expect congestion and container shortages to worsen in the next few weeks as carriers redeploy vessels to trans-Pacific services from Asia-Europe trades to meet the increased demand from shippers. The port congestion in China, not helped by occasional bad weather, is taking out functional capacity at a time when it is needed most. “Current delays at east and north China ports range from three to seven days depending on the carrier and trade lane,” a spokesperson for FIBS Logistics told the Journal of Commerce. “The situation remains fluid, and there are growing concerns congestion will worsen if more vessels are diverted from Europe to the US in June, as we’ve heard is the plan for some lines…” Congestion at Shanghai has led shippers and forwarders to divert cargo to alternative ports, especially Ningbo, which is now starting to lead to congestion and equipment shortages there, sources said. “North China ports are facing increased waiting times due to berth congestion, further impacted by intermittent port closures caused by strong winds and dense fog,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a customer advisory on Thursday. The carrier said vessels are waiting up to 72 hours to berth at Qingdao and at Shanghai’s main Yangshan offshore port complex due to “heavy vessel bunching and congestion.” Waiting time at Ningbo was up to 36 hours depending on the terminal. There are also delays of up to 72 hours at Pusan Newport International Terminal in South Korea and up to 36 hours at Singapore due to vessel bunching, the Hapag-Lloyd advisory said. Ocean Network Express (ONE) said congestion is also plaguing ports in Japan, especially Tokyo and Yokohama, and was causing lengthy delays and port omissions on some long-haul and intra-Asia services. <h3>Congestion stretches throughout Asia </h3>Kuehne + Nagel said it expected congestion and equipment challenges in China “due to the backlog of trans-Pacific cargo being shipped in the next weeks.” The logistics giant, in updates Monday on its SeaExplorer visibility platform, also highlighted congestion that was causing delays and disruption at ports across Asia. These include Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Xiamen and Nanshan in southern China; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Laem Chabang, Thailand; Manila in the Philippines; and Port Klang in Malaysia, where yard utilization is 90%. Highlighting the tight supply of containers, FIBS Logistics said CMA CGM and other carriers have started allocating containers to shippers in Shanghai and Ningbo based on available space and rate levels, “which may create selective shortages.” Maersk is particularly affected by equipment shortages in Ningbo, while “HMM is also reportedly controlling equipment release to match vessel space in Ningbo,” the FIBS spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. Highlighting the surge in cargo, Hapag-Lloyd said last Wednesday <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/china-us-ocean-bookings-surge-since-weekend-trade-deal-hapag-lloyd-6004653">it had seen an increase of more than 50% in China-US cargo bookings</a> since the two countries signed a preliminary trade deal slashing tariffs for 90 days following meetings on May 11–12. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

A rush of cargo in the eastbound trans-Pacific in the aftermath of the 90-day tariff cooldown between the US and China is starting to create vessel congestion and equipment shortages at Asian ports, especially in China, carriers and forwarders say. Forwarders expect congestion and container shortages to worsen in the next few weeks as carriers redeploy vessels to trans-Pacific services from Asia-Europe trades to meet the increased demand from shippers. The port congestion in China, not helped by occasional bad weather, is taking out functional capacity at a time when it is needed most. “Current delays at east and north China ports range from three to seven days depending on the carrier and trade lane,” a spokesperson for FIBS Logistics told the Journal of Commerce. “The situation remains fluid, and there are growing concerns congestion will worsen if more vessels are diverted from Europe to the US in June, as we’ve heard is the plan for some lines…” Congestion at Shanghai has led shippers and forwarders to divert cargo to alternative ports, especially Ningbo, which is now starting to lead to congestion and equipment shortages there, sources said. “North China ports are facing increased waiting times due to berth congestion, further impacted by intermittent port closures caused by strong winds and dense fog,” Hapag-Lloyd said in a customer advisory on Thursday. The carrier said vessels are waiting up to 72 hours to berth at Qingdao and at Shanghai’s main Yangshan offshore port complex due to “heavy vessel bunching and congestion.” Waiting time at Ningbo was up to 36 hours depending on the terminal. There are also delays of up to 72 hours at Pusan Newport International Terminal in South Korea and up to 36 hours at Singapore due to vessel bunching, the Hapag-Lloyd advisory said. Ocean Network Express (ONE) said congestion is also plaguing ports in Japan, especially Tokyo and Yokohama, and was causing lengthy delays and port omissions on some long-haul and intra-Asia services. Congestion stretches throughout Asia Kuehne + Nagel said it expected congestion and equipment challenges in China “due to the backlog of trans-Pacific cargo being shipped in the next weeks.” The logistics giant, in updates Monday on its SeaExplorer visibility platform, also highlighted congestion that was causing delays and disruption at ports across Asia. These include Shenzhen, Hong Kong, Xiamen and Nanshan in southern China; Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam; Laem Chabang, Thailand; Manila in the Philippines; and Port Klang in Malaysia, where yard utilization is 90%. Highlighting the tight supply of containers, FIBS Logistics said CMA CGM and other carriers have started allocating containers to shippers in Shanghai and Ningbo based on available space and rate levels, “which may create selective shortages.” Maersk is particularly affected by equipment shortages in Ningbo, while “HMM is also reportedly controlling equipment release to match vessel space in Ningbo,” the FIBS spokesperson told the Journal of Commerce. Highlighting the surge in cargo, Hapag-Lloyd said last Wednesday it had seen an increase of more than 50% in China-US cargo bookings since the two countries signed a preliminary trade deal slashing tariffs for 90 days following meetings on May 11–12. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Maritime

International ports

Trans-Pacific

US tariff-linked cargo rush causes port congestion, box shortages in China

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carriers want to raise prices by more than 50% in a bid to stem the slide in rates that began at the end of December and is showing no signs of slowing.</div>

The carriers want to raise prices by more than 50% in a bid to stem the slide in rates that began at the end of December and is showing no signs of slowing.

<div class="phx-topic">Excess capacity and weakening demand continue to exert downward pressure on Asia-North Europe container rates with the various indices showing the spot market has lost more than 60% of its value since the beginning of the year. Several carriers have announced rate increases for more than $3,000 per FEU from June 1 to try to slow the spot market slide but may struggle to find much support in an oversupplied market. CMA CGM will be setting its freight all kinds (FAK) rate from Asia to North Europe at $3,100 per FEU on June 1, while MSC and Hapag-Lloyd will set their rate on that route at $3,200/FEU. MSC and Hapag-Lloyd are also raising their Asia-Mediterranean FAK prices, with MSC rates of about $5,000/FEU and Hapag-Lloyd at $4,500/FEU. The asking prices are significantly higher than current rate levels. Average spot rates from Asia to North Europe on May 15 were $1,994/FEU, down from just over $5,000/FEU on Dec. 31, while Asia-Mediterranean rates of $3,156/FEU were down 42% so far this year, according to the rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global recorded spot rates from Asia to North Europe at $1,600/FEU this week, an almost 70% decline since the beginning of January. Asia-Mediterranean rates this week were at $2,700/FEU, a drop of 50% since the start of the year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="aa85df16-b8fe-4e63-9181-65cba329e464"></dynamic-object></div>The supply chain director for a Germany-based Asia-Europe shipper said he was seeing offers in the market as low as $1,200/FEU, which was putting pressure on carriers to slow the decline. "I can understand the pressure carriers are under, and they are asking for more cargo but many BCOs (beneficial cargo owners) have declining cargo flows, so the market is really imbalanced,” the source said, adding that there was little chance the rate hikes would stick. “Our demand is the same as it was at this time last year, which is a slack period. The rate increases will not be 100% but may stabilize falling prices. Whether there will be another advanced peak season is impossible to gauge, but everything is possible in this market.” <h3>Mismatch between supply and demand </h3>Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, said the mismatch between offered capacity and demand was keeping spot rates under pressure. “While rates and demand are going up on trans-Pacific, spot rates are sliding into Europe,” he told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The container shipping orderbook of 8.6 million TEUs in capacity is about 27% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just under 1 million TEUs in capacity will be delivered this year, most of it large ships that can only be deployed on Asia-Europe, while only 4,000 TEUs are set to be scrapped by the industry this year. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b2f271aa-d66e-49e2-9bc8-99469f7fc20e"></dynamic-object></div>Only 6.5% of the available capacity is being blanked in May while carriers are deploying a record 1.12 million TEUs in the month, according to data from ocean visibility provider eeSea. Sand noted that the tariff cuts on the China-US trade following a 90-day deal between Washington and Beijing last weekend has “changed the picture” with some cargo diverted from the trans-Pacific to Asia-Europe. ”One month of ‘frustrated cargo’ that didn’t go from China to the US and is on its way to Europe, the Middle East and South America. The congested northern European ports will be facing a rush in June on the back of this,” Sand added. North Europe’s largest port gateways <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/no-end-to-the-congestion-choking-gateway-ports-in-north-europe-5995853">continue to struggle with persistent congestion</a> that has delayed vessels and hampered container operations at the hubs for months. The reasons include full container yards, port strikes and slowdowns, labor shortages because of several public holidays in May, crane engineering works in some terminals and changing carrier alliance networks. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Excess capacity and weakening demand continue to exert downward pressure on Asia-North Europe container rates with the various indices showing the spot market has lost more than 60% of its value since the beginning of the year. Several carriers have announced rate increases for more than $3,000 per FEU from June 1 to try to slow the spot market slide but may struggle to find much support in an oversupplied market. CMA CGM will be setting its freight all kinds (FAK) rate from Asia to North Europe at $3,100 per FEU on June 1, while MSC and Hapag-Lloyd will set their rate on that route at $3,200/FEU. MSC and Hapag-Lloyd are also raising their Asia-Mediterranean FAK prices, with MSC rates of about $5,000/FEU and Hapag-Lloyd at $4,500/FEU. The asking prices are significantly higher than current rate levels. Average spot rates from Asia to North Europe on May 15 were $1,994/FEU, down from just over $5,000/FEU on Dec. 31, while Asia-Mediterranean rates of $3,156/FEU were down 42% so far this year, according to the rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global recorded spot rates from Asia to North Europe at $1,600/FEU this week, an almost 70% decline since the beginning of January. Asia-Mediterranean rates this week were at $2,700/FEU, a drop of 50% since the start of the year. The supply chain director for a Germany-based Asia-Europe shipper said he was seeing offers in the market as low as $1,200/FEU, which was putting pressure on carriers to slow the decline. "I can understand the pressure carriers are under, and they are asking for more cargo but many BCOs (beneficial cargo owners) have declining cargo flows, so the market is really imbalanced,” the source said, adding that there was little chance the rate hikes would stick. “Our demand is the same as it was at this time last year, which is a slack period. The rate increases will not be 100% but may stabilize falling prices. Whether there will be another advanced peak season is impossible to gauge, but everything is possible in this market.” Mismatch between supply and demand Peter Sand, chief analyst at Xeneta, said the mismatch between offered capacity and demand was keeping spot rates under pressure. “While rates and demand are going up on trans-Pacific, spot rates are sliding into Europe,” he told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The container shipping orderbook of 8.6 million TEUs in capacity is about 27% of the in-service fleet, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce. Just under 1 million TEUs in capacity will be delivered this year, most of it large ships that can only be deployed on Asia-Europe, while only 4,000 TEUs are set to be scrapped by the industry this year. Only 6.5% of the available capacity is being blanked in May while carriers are deploying a record 1.12 million TEUs in the month, according to data from ocean visibility provider eeSea. Sand noted that the tariff cuts on the China-US trade following a 90-day deal between Washington and Beijing last weekend has “changed the picture” with some cargo diverted from the trans-Pacific to Asia-Europe. ”One month of ‘frustrated cargo’ that didn’t go from China to the US and is on its way to Europe, the Middle East and South America. The congested northern European ports will be facing a rush in June on the back of this,” Sand added. North Europe’s largest port gateways continue to struggle with persistent congestion that has delayed vessels and hampered container operations at the hubs for months. The reasons include full container yards, port strikes and slowdowns, labor shortages because of several public holidays in May, crane engineering works in some terminals and changing carrier alliance networks. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container lines

Asia-Europe

Ocean carriers line up hefty rate hikes on oversupplied Asia-Europe trade

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Container lines are looking to capitalize on a ramp-up in Asia-US bookings during the 90-day tariff reduction that followed Monday’s deal between the Trump administration and China.</div>

Container lines are looking to capitalize on a ramp-up in Asia-US bookings during the 90-day tariff reduction that followed Monday’s deal between the Trump administration and China.

<div class="phx-topic">Major container lines are seeking spot rates on service from China to the US West Coast that are more than double the current level as they look to capitalize on an anticipated surge of volume triggered by a 90-day pause in the steepest US tariffs. Container spot rates are already spiking following the Monday announcement, and if carriers are successful in imposing a combination of general rate increases (GRIs) and peak season surcharges (PSSs) set to take effect June 1, pricing would jump to approximately $6,000 per FEU to the West Coast and $7,000 per FEU to the East Coast. GRIs apply to all shippers regardless of size, while PSSs are only imposed on smaller shippers that don’t have agreements with carriers prohibiting their use. Momentum appears to be on the carriers’ side. Hapag-Lloyd said it has seen <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/china-us-ocean-bookings-surge-since-weekend-trade-deal-hapag-lloyd-6004653">a 50% increase in bookings</a> from China to the US this week, while forwarders have reported jumps as high as 100%. Given the short window of the agreement, and the need to ship fall and holiday merchandise before tariffs may increase if the deal falls apart, forwarders report that bookings are soaring. “It’s shades of 2024,” Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at forwarder DSV, told the Journal of Commerce, referring to last summer, when container spot rates jumped to upward of $8,000 per FEU to the West Coast during acrimonious dockworker contract negotiations on the East and Gulf coasts. As of Wednesday, average spot rates from Asia to the West Coast rose to $2,567 per FEU, up from $1,600 per FEU at the end of March, while Asia-East Coast pricing rose to $3,567 per FEU from $2,600 per FEU during the same period, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Last year, spot rates <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-to-deploy-extra-loaders-to-los-angeles-long-beach-amid-import-surge-5714861">peaked at $8,133 per FEU to the West Coast</a> and $10,133 per FEU to the East Coast in the week of July 5. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="db2a41f2-e1d4-498c-bda1-401715921660"></dynamic-object></div>Carriers Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping have filed spot rates of $6,000 per FEU starting June 1. Another round of increases is poised for June 15, with Hapag-Lloyd, MSC and CMA CGM set to increase rates to $8,000 per FEU, according to rate notices from the carriers. “Of course, these are just their filings,” noted a forwarder who asked not to be identified. “We will see what levels they really pass on once we get to these dates.” <h3>Bookings from China surge </h3>The carrier rate increases appear to be supported by a spike in bookings since the US and China announced an agreement that reduced US tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% for at least the next 90 days. “There’s definitely been a ramp up in orders during this 90-day window,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. Khachatryan explained that importers appear to be in a rush to get their shipments into the US while the 30% tariff on China is in effect. They are concerned that after 90 days, if a permanent agreement is not reached, the tariffs could shoot back up. “Everyone seems to be concerned with the 90-day window,” Khachatryan said. Revelyst, an importer of outdoor apparel, paused its purchase orders with factories in China in April, said John Pace, senior manager of global logistics. Now, the company is prioritizing those shipments that are ready to move, to be followed by shipments that will depart in the coming weeks as factories ramp up production. A carrier executive who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce that factories in China should be able to quickly increase production as most vendors paused or slowed down production after the 145% duty went into effect in early April, rather than completely shutting down and laying off staff. Similar to Khachatryan, the carrier executive said importers are frontloading as much merchandise as they can. “They have to ship now in case there is another tariff increase in August,” the source said. However, forwarders and importers say the huge increases in spot rates and surcharges that carriers announced over the past few days would put a large dent in the savings they had anticipated from the tariff cuts. “We are being careful,” Pace said. “Shipping rates are certainly a factor in our decisions.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:laura.robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Major container lines are seeking spot rates on service from China to the US West Coast that are more than double the current level as they look to capitalize on an anticipated surge of volume triggered by a 90-day pause in the steepest US tariffs. Container spot rates are already spiking following the Monday announcement, and if carriers are successful in imposing a combination of general rate increases (GRIs) and peak season surcharges (PSSs) set to take effect June 1, pricing would jump to approximately $6,000 per FEU to the West Coast and $7,000 per FEU to the East Coast. GRIs apply to all shippers regardless of size, while PSSs are only imposed on smaller shippers that don’t have agreements with carriers prohibiting their use. Momentum appears to be on the carriers’ side. Hapag-Lloyd said it has seen a 50% increase in bookings from China to the US this week, while forwarders have reported jumps as high as 100%. Given the short window of the agreement, and the need to ship fall and holiday merchandise before tariffs may increase if the deal falls apart, forwarders report that bookings are soaring. “It’s shades of 2024,” Benton Kauffman, head of trans-Pacific air and sea logistics at forwarder DSV, told the Journal of Commerce, referring to last summer, when container spot rates jumped to upward of $8,000 per FEU to the West Coast during acrimonious dockworker contract negotiations on the East and Gulf coasts. As of Wednesday, average spot rates from Asia to the West Coast rose to $2,567 per FEU, up from $1,600 per FEU at the end of March, while Asia-East Coast pricing rose to $3,567 per FEU from $2,600 per FEU during the same period, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Last year, spot rates peaked at $8,133 per FEU to the West Coast and $10,133 per FEU to the East Coast in the week of July 5. Carriers Hapag-Lloyd, Mediterranean Shipping Co., CMA CGM, Ocean Network Express (ONE) and Zim Integrated Shipping have filed spot rates of $6,000 per FEU starting June 1. Another round of increases is poised for June 15, with Hapag-Lloyd, MSC and CMA CGM set to increase rates to $8,000 per FEU, according to rate notices from the carriers. “Of course, these are just their filings,” noted a forwarder who asked not to be identified. “We will see what levels they really pass on once we get to these dates.” Bookings from China surge The carrier rate increases appear to be supported by a spike in bookings since the US and China announced an agreement that reduced US tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% for at least the next 90 days. “There’s definitely been a ramp up in orders during this 90-day window,” said Robert Khachatryan, CEO of forwarder Freight Right Global Logistics. Khachatryan explained that importers appear to be in a rush to get their shipments into the US while the 30% tariff on China is in effect. They are concerned that after 90 days, if a permanent agreement is not reached, the tariffs could shoot back up. “Everyone seems to be concerned with the 90-day window,” Khachatryan said. Revelyst, an importer of outdoor apparel, paused its purchase orders with factories in China in April, said John Pace, senior manager of global logistics. Now, the company is prioritizing those shipments that are ready to move, to be followed by shipments that will depart in the coming weeks as factories ramp up production. A carrier executive who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce that factories in China should be able to quickly increase production as most vendors paused or slowed down production after the 145% duty went into effect in early April, rather than completely shutting down and laying off staff. Similar to Khachatryan, the carrier executive said importers are frontloading as much merchandise as they can. “They have to ship now in case there is another tariff increase in August,” the source said. However, forwarders and importers say the huge increases in spot rates and surcharges that carriers announced over the past few days would put a large dent in the savings they had anticipated from the tariff cuts. “We are being careful,” Pace said. “Shipping rates are certainly a factor in our decisions.” Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific carriers announce massive June rate hikes

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 MDRW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE

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 MDW25 at checkout to save 25% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

Use code MDW25 at checkout and save 25% on any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - 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

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

Upgrade Subscription

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW25 at checkout to save 25% on first year of any annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDW25 at checkout and save 25% on any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE: Use code MDRW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Greater interplay between US drayage and truckload markets may appear as imports fluctuate due to shifting tariff deadlines, but little impact is expected on pricing. </div>

Greater interplay between US drayage and truckload markets may appear as imports fluctuate due to shifting tariff deadlines, but little impact is expected on pricing.

<div class="phx-topic">A sooner-than-anticipated influx of US imports from China is already <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-carriers-announce-massive-june-rate-hikes-6005450">pushing up ocean container spot rates</a>, but those price increases are not expected to reach landbound drayage and truckload markets. A thick layer of excess truck capacity persists and may even be expanding, and that is likely to keep land transportation pricing in check despite US importers frontloading freight during a 90-day pause in the steepest tariffs on Chinese-made goods. “Right now, we don’t see enough capacity exits to lead us to believe that [truckload] rates are going to be higher,” even as more cargo from China arrives over the next 90 days, Sean Dehan, vice president of corporate strategy and mergers and acquisitions at Truckstop, said Friday. Truckstop, a spot market load-matching and trucking technology company, still expects some greater interplay between spot truckload and drayage in coming weeks. “Drayage drivers could effectively go into power-only mode,” meaning they could use their tractors on the spot market to haul trailers, Dehan said. “There may be some marginal drayage carriers who pop into over-the-road even as import volumes stay measured.” <h3>Supply-demand imbalance </h3>Surface freight demand has been in recession since the second quarter of 2022, and even a large increase in imports, which only account for a small portion of overall over-the-road tonnage, likely won’t be enough to resuscitate demand. “There don’t appear to be too many demand catalysts that we can point to right now,” Dehan said. “Tariffs are not going to create demand.” At the same time, truck capacity is readily available, whether at the ports or on highways. There is still about 35% more over-the-road truckload capacity available than in 2019, according to Avery Vise, vice president of trucking for FTR Transportation Intelligence. Most instances where freight activity has increased in the past few months can be attributed to frontloaded US imports. Spot market load board provider DAT Freight &amp; Analytics noted increased activity around major distribution hubs in April. “The big warehouse markets — Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix — have all seen a big influx of loads moved in April, both inbound and outbound,” Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT, told the Journal of Commerce. But that hasn’t moved spot pricing. Average US dry-van spot rates for the week ending May 10 of $1.60 per mile were up just three cents from the same week a year ago, according to DAT, while the average contract replacement rate slipped 0.5% sequentially during the same week. “Overall, we continue to observe a consistent market,” Aaron LaGanke, vice president of freight services at logistics provider AFS Logistics, said Thursday. “Minor month-to-month fluctuations in rates and volumes remain within the bounds of typical variability.” The wild card is going to be the size and extent of the rebound once fresh imports from China and other trading partners hit US ports. Demand “may be a little bit slack for four weeks, and then it will hit in June,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain at drayage brokerage ITS Logistics. “We won’t see COVID-level disruption, but it will be a lift, and it’s on the way.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A sooner-than-anticipated influx of US imports from China is already pushing up ocean container spot rates , but those price increases are not expected to reach landbound drayage and truckload markets. A thick layer of excess truck capacity persists and may even be expanding, and that is likely to keep land transportation pricing in check despite US importers frontloading freight during a 90-day pause in the steepest tariffs on Chinese-made goods. “Right now, we don’t see enough capacity exits to lead us to believe that [truckload] rates are going to be higher,” even as more cargo from China arrives over the next 90 days, Sean Dehan, vice president of corporate strategy and mergers and acquisitions at Truckstop, said Friday. Truckstop, a spot market load-matching and trucking technology company, still expects some greater interplay between spot truckload and drayage in coming weeks. “Drayage drivers could effectively go into power-only mode,” meaning they could use their tractors on the spot market to haul trailers, Dehan said. “There may be some marginal drayage carriers who pop into over-the-road even as import volumes stay measured.” Supply-demand imbalance Surface freight demand has been in recession since the second quarter of 2022, and even a large increase in imports, which only account for a small portion of overall over-the-road tonnage, likely won’t be enough to resuscitate demand. “There don’t appear to be too many demand catalysts that we can point to right now,” Dehan said. “Tariffs are not going to create demand.” At the same time, truck capacity is readily available, whether at the ports or on highways. There is still about 35% more over-the-road truckload capacity available than in 2019, according to Avery Vise, vice president of trucking for FTR Transportation Intelligence. Most instances where freight activity has increased in the past few months can be attributed to frontloaded US imports. Spot market load board provider DAT Freight & Analytics noted increased activity around major distribution hubs in April. “The big warehouse markets — Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix — have all seen a big influx of loads moved in April, both inbound and outbound,” Dean Croke, principal analyst at DAT, told the Journal of Commerce. But that hasn’t moved spot pricing. Average US dry-van spot rates for the week ending May 10 of $1.60 per mile were up just three cents from the same week a year ago, according to DAT, while the average contract replacement rate slipped 0.5% sequentially during the same week. “Overall, we continue to observe a consistent market,” Aaron LaGanke, vice president of freight services at logistics provider AFS Logistics, said Thursday. “Minor month-to-month fluctuations in rates and volumes remain within the bounds of typical variability.” The wild card is going to be the size and extent of the rebound once fresh imports from China and other trading partners hit US ports. Demand “may be a little bit slack for four weeks, and then it will hit in June,” said Paul Brashier, vice president of global supply chain at drayage brokerage ITS Logistics. “We won’t see COVID-level disruption, but it will be a lift, and it’s on the way.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Drayage

Truckload

Capacity-demand imbalance to shield truck rates from US import surge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers may find it difficult to bring trans-Pacific capacity back quickly because they repositioned ships into other trades outside of the region amid the tariff-linked demand drop in April and early May. </div>

Carriers may find it difficult to bring trans-Pacific capacity back quickly because they repositioned ships into other trades outside of the region amid the tariff-linked demand drop in April and early May.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers are bringing suspended container services back to the trans-Pacific next month due to heavy import demand from China. Even so, capacity remains tight in the near term as some ships that once served the trans-Pacific have been redeployed to other lanes. President Donald Trump’s temporary reprieve on reciprocal tariffs against China has meant the resumption of previously canceled ocean freight bookings, as well as likely frontloading of imports during the 90-day reprieve period, which ends Aug. 14. That means container capacity from China is “tight” through the first week of July, Hong Kong-based logistics provider Honour Lane Shipping said in its most recent trans-Pacific market update, adding that cargo may likely be rolled to later voyages due to space constraints. “All carriers are facing serious space shortages as they’ve cut a large percentage of their capacities by service suspension and blank sailings in the previous two months,” Honour Lane said. “Most vessels are very full by the end of the month, and many of them have overbooking.” Zim Integrated Shipping Service was one of the first out of the gate to announce <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/zim-restarts-china-los-angeles-service-to-capture-fresh-import-demand-6007601">it will restart an express service</a> from China to the Port of Los Angeles, and now other carriers are following suit. After <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/april-blank-sailings-ramp-up-amid-push-to-finalize-long-term-contracts-5974802">a slate of blank sailings</a>, Mediterranean Shipping Co. is resuming regular weekly sailings on its Orient service between China and the Port of Long Beach starting with the June 9 departure from Shanghai of the 8,500-TEU MSC Tianshan, according to MSC’s vessel schedule. The Premier Alliance also appears to be planning a restart of its PS5 service from China to the ports of Long Beach and Oakland. Alliance member Ocean Network Express (ONE) shows four vessels already nominated to the string, with the first voyage from Qingdao on June 6 on the 6,589-TEU YM Mobility. The resumption of the PS5, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-capacity-cuts-accelerating-amid-sharp-reduction-in-chinese-cargo-5992769">originally planned for May</a>, was delayed due to the downturn in import demand. <h3>‘Takes time to resume services’ </h3>Other carriers, though, may find it more difficult to bring trans-Pacific capacity back quickly because they have repositioned ships into other trades outside of the region, Honour Lane’s report said. “Despite the demand spikes, carriers have yet to return capacity to China,” Honour Lane said. “It takes time to resume services or cancel blank sailings which have been announced months ago.” Cosco Shipping’s AAC4 service from central China to Long Beach went to a biweekly schedule, instead of weekly, through May due to the post-tariff demand downturn. While the service is set to resume weekly voyages in June, Cosco redeployed two vessels in the AAC4 service to other markets. The 14,568-TEU Cosco Shipping Alps, which had called Long Beach regularly since 2023 as part of the AAC4 service, is now destined for the Port of Rotterdam with a May 24 estimated arrival, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Likewise, the 13,386-TEU Cosco Portugal, which had been in the AAC4 rotation since 2021, is also scheduled to call Rotterdam in June. Evergreen Marine may also have to reposition ships to the trans-Pacific to meet the renewed demand. After its CPS service to Los Angeles blanked five weekly voyages through April and May, two vessels in that service went to other trades. Evergreen’s 11,888-TEU Ever Fame had been in the rotation for the carrier’s CPS service since this year, port call data shows. However, since the CPS started blanking its weekly calls, the Ever Fame is now en route to Rio De Janeiro as part of Evergreen’s Far East-South America service. The 12,118-TEU Ever Frank, which was also put into the CPS rotation at the start of 2025, is now en route to Southampton, England, as part of Evergreen’s China-Europe Shuttle service. Evergreen is now looking to backfill capacity in the wake of the schedule changes. The carrier scheduled two ad hoc calls to Los Angeles in May on its Asia-Northwest Pacific service. Evergreen’s HTW service also made ad hoc calls to Shanghai and Ningbo after service from those ports was curtailed. Other Ocean Alliance members are resuming regular trans-Pacific services. CMA CGM’s Pearl River Express service to Los Angeles, which canceled nearly all its sailings from April through May, plans to return to a regular weekly cadence in June, as does OOCL’s Pacific South China Express service. Cosco Shipping is set to deploy two extra loaders from China to Long Beach this week to handle the sudden demand surge, but it’s “not sure whether it would be enough to mitigate the short supply,” Honour Lane said in its advisory. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean carriers are bringing suspended container services back to the trans-Pacific next month due to heavy import demand from China. Even so, capacity remains tight in the near term as some ships that once served the trans-Pacific have been redeployed to other lanes. President Donald Trump’s temporary reprieve on reciprocal tariffs against China has meant the resumption of previously canceled ocean freight bookings, as well as likely frontloading of imports during the 90-day reprieve period, which ends Aug. 14. That means container capacity from China is “tight” through the first week of July, Hong Kong-based logistics provider Honour Lane Shipping said in its most recent trans-Pacific market update, adding that cargo may likely be rolled to later voyages due to space constraints. “All carriers are facing serious space shortages as they’ve cut a large percentage of their capacities by service suspension and blank sailings in the previous two months,” Honour Lane said. “Most vessels are very full by the end of the month, and many of them have overbooking.” Zim Integrated Shipping Service was one of the first out of the gate to announce it will restart an express service from China to the Port of Los Angeles, and now other carriers are following suit. After a slate of blank sailings , Mediterranean Shipping Co. is resuming regular weekly sailings on its Orient service between China and the Port of Long Beach starting with the June 9 departure from Shanghai of the 8,500-TEU MSC Tianshan, according to MSC’s vessel schedule. The Premier Alliance also appears to be planning a restart of its PS5 service from China to the ports of Long Beach and Oakland. Alliance member Ocean Network Express (ONE) shows four vessels already nominated to the string, with the first voyage from Qingdao on June 6 on the 6,589-TEU YM Mobility. The resumption of the PS5, originally planned for May , was delayed due to the downturn in import demand. ‘Takes time to resume services’ Other carriers, though, may find it more difficult to bring trans-Pacific capacity back quickly because they have repositioned ships into other trades outside of the region, Honour Lane’s report said. “Despite the demand spikes, carriers have yet to return capacity to China,” Honour Lane said. “It takes time to resume services or cancel blank sailings which have been announced months ago.” Cosco Shipping’s AAC4 service from central China to Long Beach went to a biweekly schedule, instead of weekly, through May due to the post-tariff demand downturn. While the service is set to resume weekly voyages in June, Cosco redeployed two vessels in the AAC4 service to other markets. The 14,568-TEU Cosco Shipping Alps, which had called Long Beach regularly since 2023 as part of the AAC4 service, is now destined for the Port of Rotterdam with a May 24 estimated arrival, according to data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Likewise, the 13,386-TEU Cosco Portugal, which had been in the AAC4 rotation since 2021, is also scheduled to call Rotterdam in June. Evergreen Marine may also have to reposition ships to the trans-Pacific to meet the renewed demand. After its CPS service to Los Angeles blanked five weekly voyages through April and May, two vessels in that service went to other trades. Evergreen’s 11,888-TEU Ever Fame had been in the rotation for the carrier’s CPS service since this year, port call data shows. However, since the CPS started blanking its weekly calls, the Ever Fame is now en route to Rio De Janeiro as part of Evergreen’s Far East-South America service. The 12,118-TEU Ever Frank, which was also put into the CPS rotation at the start of 2025, is now en route to Southampton, England, as part of Evergreen’s China-Europe Shuttle service. Evergreen is now looking to backfill capacity in the wake of the schedule changes. The carrier scheduled two ad hoc calls to Los Angeles in May on its Asia-Northwest Pacific service. Evergreen’s HTW service also made ad hoc calls to Shanghai and Ningbo after service from those ports was curtailed. Other Ocean Alliance members are resuming regular trans-Pacific services. CMA CGM’s Pearl River Express service to Los Angeles, which canceled nearly all its sailings from April through May, plans to return to a regular weekly cadence in June, as does OOCL’s Pacific South China Express service. Cosco Shipping is set to deploy two extra loaders from China to Long Beach this week to handle the sudden demand surge, but it’s “not sure whether it would be enough to mitigate the short supply,” Honour Lane said in its advisory. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific services set for restart as carriers scramble to restore capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Under their current configuration, the newest round of tariffs targeting China’s maritime industry will add $7 billion in costs for US ports, according to one estimate. </div>

Under their current configuration, the newest round of tariffs targeting China’s maritime industry will add $7 billion in costs for US ports, according to one estimate.

<div class="phx-topic">US ports face almost $7 billion in tariff costs under the Trump administration’s proposed levy on Chinese container cranes, according to the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), which has joined other stakeholders in calling for a delay to allow a domestic crane industry to develop before cutting China out of the market.AAPA delivered the estimate in prepared comments ahead of a hearing on Monday on the new tariffs at the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The USTR in April unveiled the proposed tariffs on Chinese-made cranes, containers, chassis and similar equipment as part of its one-year-old investigation into China’s dominant market share of the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries. The investigation, begun under the Biden administration at the request of several US trade and manufacturing unions, has already resulted in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">a new tariff</a> to be assessed on Chinese ships and ocean carriers calling the US beginning in October. AAPA said 44 of the 55 cranes currently on order by US ports are being made in China. Over the next 10 years, US ports need to purchase another 151 container cranes, with 121 of those due to come from China, AAPA said. Those current and future orders total about $2.5 billion, AAPA said. If the tariffs on container equipment — up to 100% — are added to existing tariffs on Chinese imports, US ports will pay $6.7 billion in tariffs, according to the group. As an example, AAPA said the Port of Houston is scheduled to receive eight cranes from Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC), China’s leading manufacturer, in the spring of 2026. Houston would be forced to pay $304 million in tariffs on that order if the fees are imposed, AAPA said, adding “that means over $300 million not invested in infrastructure projects at one of the nation’s largest ports.” AAPA asked that any cranes ordered before April be exempt from the tariffs. “American ports need these cranes now, but they simply cannot afford [the] unexpected costs,” AAPA said. “They cannot back out of these purchases.” <h3>‘Significant strain’</h3>The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said its marine terminal operators, which have over 70 cranes, are currently planning to purchase more. With ZPMC the source for over half of the port’s cranes, the tariffs would “result in a significant strain on the local and national maritime industry,” the port said.Even if a port did not contract with ZPMC, orders with other crane manufacturers in Europe and Asia would also likely face the tariffs because part of their manufacturing is done in China or uses Chinese components, the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) said in its prepared comments to the USTR.While the Biden administration earmarked $20 billion in incentives last year for developing US crane manufacturing, AAPA and NAWE said that effort will take a long time to develop due to the lack of skilled welders and the reliance on Chinese manufacturers for subassemblies and other crane components. Both groups urged the USTR to delay the implementation by two to three years to allow a US-based crane industry to develop. “Currently, existing suppliers have a lead time of about two years for new orders of STS cranes,” AAPA said. “We can therefore assume that it will take at least that long for the first American STS cranes to roll off the assembly line, and that is if final investment decisions in new factories were made today.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US ports face almost $7 billion in tariff costs under the Trump administration’s proposed levy on Chinese container cranes, according to the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), which has joined other stakeholders in calling for a delay to allow a domestic crane industry to develop before cutting China out of the market. AAPA delivered the estimate in prepared comments ahead of a hearing on Monday on the new tariffs at the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The USTR in April unveiled the proposed tariffs on Chinese-made cranes, containers, chassis and similar equipment as part of its one-year-old investigation into China’s dominant market share of the maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries. The investigation, begun under the Biden administration at the request of several US trade and manufacturing unions, has already resulted in a new tariff to be assessed on Chinese ships and ocean carriers calling the US beginning in October. AAPA said 44 of the 55 cranes currently on order by US ports are being made in China. Over the next 10 years, US ports need to purchase another 151 container cranes, with 121 of those due to come from China, AAPA said. Those current and future orders total about $2.5 billion, AAPA said. If the tariffs on container equipment — up to 100% — are added to existing tariffs on Chinese imports, US ports will pay $6.7 billion in tariffs, according to the group. As an example, AAPA said the Port of Houston is scheduled to receive eight cranes from Shanghai Zhenhua Heavy Industries (ZPMC), China’s leading manufacturer, in the spring of 2026. Houston would be forced to pay $304 million in tariffs on that order if the fees are imposed, AAPA said, adding “that means over $300 million not invested in infrastructure projects at one of the nation’s largest ports.” AAPA asked that any cranes ordered before April be exempt from the tariffs. “American ports need these cranes now, but they simply cannot afford [the] unexpected costs,” AAPA said. “They cannot back out of these purchases.” ‘Significant strain’ The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said its marine terminal operators, which have over 70 cranes, are currently planning to purchase more. With ZPMC the source for over half of the port’s cranes, the tariffs would “result in a significant strain on the local and national maritime industry,” the port said. Even if a port did not contract with ZPMC, orders with other crane manufacturers in Europe and Asia would also likely face the tariffs because part of their manufacturing is done in China or uses Chinese components, the National Association of Waterfront Employers (NAWE) said in its prepared comments to the USTR. While the Biden administration earmarked $20 billion in incentives last year for developing US crane manufacturing, AAPA and NAWE said that effort will take a long time to develop due to the lack of skilled welders and the reliance on Chinese manufacturers for subassemblies and other crane components. Both groups urged the USTR to delay the implementation by two to three years to allow a US-based crane industry to develop. “Currently, existing suppliers have a lead time of about two years for new orders of STS cranes,” AAPA said. “We can therefore assume that it will take at least that long for the first American STS cranes to roll off the assembly line, and that is if final investment decisions in new factories were made today.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .