<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">An oversupply of vessels, carrier rate wars and bleak consumer sentiment are positioned to oppress the container shipping market in 2025, experts told TPM25. </div>

An oversupply of vessels, carrier rate wars and bleak consumer sentiment are positioned to oppress the container shipping market in 2025, experts told TPM25.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Long Beach, California — The container shipping market is poised to recede this year, and the downcycle could be more severe than prior bear markets, industry experts at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference said Monday. A container market downcycle is already “well underway,” said Parash Jain, global head of Transport and Logistics Research at HSBC. “This downturn could be worse than past downturns,” said Jain, speaking during a panel session on the container shipping outlook for 2025. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5951877_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Jain pointed to several factors that could provide fuel for the downcycle, including uneven demand growth globally, a worsening supply-demand imbalance, a hefty order book that is poised to exacerbate an already significant oversupply issue and increased carrier war chests that could prolong price wars. According to Jain, global nominal fleet growth at 33% far outpaced container trade volume growth of 9% in 2024, although disruptions absorbed much of that extra capacity. If those disruptions recede, oversupply will likely return and drag rates lower, he said. In addition to overcapacity, uneven demand growth globally poses a growing hurdle for the industry. While volumes on the Asia-to-North America trade grew 28% from 2019 to 2024, the North America-Asia lane shrunk 15% and the Europe-Asia trade declined 23% during that same time, Jain said. Unbalanced demand growth worsens the supply-demand imbalance and exacerbates equipment availability hurdles, he said. At the same time, shrinking consumer demand and increasingly aggressive tariffs pose a potential hurdle for the industry this year, according to Chris Rogers, head of supply chain research at S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. “That’s likely to prove inflationary, which could start to hit consumer spending in a way maybe we didn’t see last time around,” Rogers said. S&amp;P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Meanwhile, a US proposal to tax Chinese tonnage and port calls could introduce further uncertainty, said Jain, which is “sufficient enough to create chaos come April.” Still, the proposal’s viability has been met with significant skepticism. The shipping industry is in a “new area of volatility,” said Heather Hwang, head of the sea pricing strategy department at logistics provider LX Pantos. Spot ocean rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific have fallen more than 53% to the US West Coast this year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

Long Beach, California — The container shipping market is poised to recede this year, and the downcycle could be more severe than prior bear markets, industry experts at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference said Monday. A container market downcycle is already “well underway,” said Parash Jain, global head of Transport and Logistics Research at HSBC. “This downturn could be worse than past downturns,” said Jain, speaking during a panel session on the container shipping outlook for 2025. Jain pointed to several factors that could provide fuel for the downcycle, including uneven demand growth globally, a worsening supply-demand imbalance, a hefty order book that is poised to exacerbate an already significant oversupply issue and increased carrier war chests that could prolong price wars. According to Jain, global nominal fleet growth at 33% far outpaced container trade volume growth of 9% in 2024, although disruptions absorbed much of that extra capacity. If those disruptions recede, oversupply will likely return and drag rates lower, he said. In addition to overcapacity, uneven demand growth globally poses a growing hurdle for the industry. While volumes on the Asia-to-North America trade grew 28% from 2019 to 2024, the North America-Asia lane shrunk 15% and the Europe-Asia trade declined 23% during that same time, Jain said. Unbalanced demand growth worsens the supply-demand imbalance and exacerbates equipment availability hurdles, he said. At the same time, shrinking consumer demand and increasingly aggressive tariffs pose a potential hurdle for the industry this year, according to Chris Rogers, head of supply chain research at S&P Global Market Intelligence. “That’s likely to prove inflationary, which could start to hit consumer spending in a way maybe we didn’t see last time around,” Rogers said. S&P Global is the parent company of the Journal of Commerce. Meanwhile, a US proposal to tax Chinese tonnage and port calls could introduce further uncertainty, said Jain, which is “sufficient enough to create chaos come April.” Still, the proposal’s viability has been met with significant skepticism. The shipping industry is in a “new area of volatility,” said Heather Hwang, head of the sea pricing strategy department at logistics provider LX Pantos. Spot ocean rates in the eastbound trans-Pacific have fallen more than 53% to the US West Coast this year, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com . 

Supply chain

Container Shipping News

Maritime

TPM25: Container market downturn creating ‘new era of volatility’

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Truckload spot shipments and pricing in trade corridors such as Toronto-to-Chicago have soared since the US election, but the increases flow in both directions. </div>

Truckload spot shipments and pricing in trade corridors such as Toronto-to-Chicago have soared since the US election, but the increases flow in both directions.

<div class="phx-topic">Truckload volumes and spot rates for freight moving between Canada and the US are surging in advance of US tariffs scheduled to be implemented Tuesday. Dry-van spot-market volumes from Toronto to Chicago rose 57% in the week ending Feb. 28, while rates in the cross-border lane rose 7%, according to DAT Freight &amp; Analytics. US President Donald Trump on Monday afternoon announced that 25% US tariffs on goods imported from Canada and Mexico will indeed take effect March 4 as scheduled. The impact of those potential tariffs — and the possibility of reciprocal tariffs — is already affecting freight and pricing on both sides of the US-Canadian border. Spot rates from the US to Canada on average have climbed 18% since the US election and 6% in the last two weeks to their highest level in two years, DAT said. In Canada, spot rates for US-bound loads are up 7% on average since the election and 5% in the last two weeks, the load-board operator and spot market data provider said. Cross-border freight accounted for an atypical 72% of posted loads in January at Canadian load-board operator Loadlink, a sister company of DAT within Roper Industries. Businesses on both sides of the border are trying to get ahold of critical goods ahead of the Trump administration tariffs, which were postponed last month until March 4. “Many businesses are accelerating their shipments to avoid future cost hikes associated with tariffs,” Loadlink said in its most recent freight report. <h3>Preparing for ‘future complications’ </h3>Loadlink’s Canadian spot market freight index, a measure of volume, jumped 40% in January from December and was up 13% year over year. At the same time, available Canadian spot truck capacity fell 29% year over year in January, despite a 2% increase from December. “The increase in shipping loads, especially across the border, indicates Canadian and American companies are getting ready for any future complications,” Loadlink said. Rate increases for freight headed from the US-Mexican border to US markets have been much more muted than on the US-Canada border, according to DAT. The average rate from Laredo, Texas, the largest US truck border crossing, to Detroit was up only 3 cents per mile over the seven days ending March 3, according to DAT. Laredo-to-Chicago rates rose just 2 cents per mile in the same period, while rates in the shorter haul lane linking Laredo and Dallas rose 4 cents per mile. That reflects the differences in cross-border trucking between the US and Mexico and Canada and the US, with the latter being much more open and fluid. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Truckload volumes and spot rates for freight moving between Canada and the US are surging in advance of US tariffs scheduled to be implemented Tuesday. Dry-van spot-market volumes from Toronto to Chicago rose 57% in the week ending Feb. 28, while rates in the cross-border lane rose 7%, according to DAT Freight & Analytics. US President Donald Trump on Monday afternoon announced that 25% US tariffs on goods imported from Canada and Mexico will indeed take effect March 4 as scheduled. The impact of those potential tariffs — and the possibility of reciprocal tariffs — is already affecting freight and pricing on both sides of the US-Canadian border. Spot rates from the US to Canada on average have climbed 18% since the US election and 6% in the last two weeks to their highest level in two years, DAT said. In Canada, spot rates for US-bound loads are up 7% on average since the election and 5% in the last two weeks, the load-board operator and spot market data provider said. Cross-border freight accounted for an atypical 72% of posted loads in January at Canadian load-board operator Loadlink, a sister company of DAT within Roper Industries. Businesses on both sides of the border are trying to get ahold of critical goods ahead of the Trump administration tariffs, which were postponed last month until March 4. “Many businesses are accelerating their shipments to avoid future cost hikes associated with tariffs,” Loadlink said in its most recent freight report. Preparing for ‘future complications’ Loadlink’s Canadian spot market freight index, a measure of volume, jumped 40% in January from December and was up 13% year over year. At the same time, available Canadian spot truck capacity fell 29% year over year in January, despite a 2% increase from December. “The increase in shipping loads, especially across the border, indicates Canadian and American companies are getting ready for any future complications,” Loadlink said. Rate increases for freight headed from the US-Mexican border to US markets have been much more muted than on the US-Canada border, according to DAT. The average rate from Laredo, Texas, the largest US truck border crossing, to Detroit was up only 3 cents per mile over the seven days ending March 3, according to DAT. Laredo-to-Chicago rates rose just 2 cents per mile in the same period, while rates in the shorter haul lane linking Laredo and Dallas rose 4 cents per mile. That reflects the differences in cross-border trucking between the US and Mexico and Canada and the US, with the latter being much more open and fluid. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Truckload

Surface

Potential US tariffs ignite US-Canada cross-border spot truck rates, volumes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Should the Trump administration’s proposal be implemented, capacity will have to be withdrawn from the US and redeployed to where it makes more economical sense, the CEO of the world’s largest ocean carrier said.</div>

Should the Trump administration’s proposal be implemented, capacity will have to be withdrawn from the US and redeployed to where it makes more economical sense, the CEO of the world’s largest ocean carrier said.

<div class="phx-topic">Long Beach, California — Mediterranean Shipping Co. will need to withdraw tonnage and drastically revise its US coverage if the Trump administration’s proposal to tax Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports is implemented, CEO Soren Toft told the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference Monday. The head of the world’s largest ocean carrier said the significant costs that would be imposed on carriers — in excess of $1 million per US port rotation — would make some routes unviable. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5951877_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“The trans-Atlantic will be uneconomical if we can’t pass on the costs, so we would have to withdraw that capacity and deploy it where it makes more sense,” Toft warned, adding that the “marginal ports” in US strings would have to be looked at. “In California today we typically call at Long Beach then proceed to Oakland,” he said. “But we can’t proceed to Oakland if that costs us another $1 million. A lot of the marginal ports, the peripheral ports, will be at risk and we will have to adapt our services.” Following the conclusion of an investigation into anti-competitive practices of China’s shipbuilding industry that was initiated during the Biden administration, the US Trade Representative (USTR) last month <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">released its suggested remedies</a>, including fees up to $1 million for Chinese-operated ships calling US ports. Toft provided an example of the costs that would need to be passed on to cargo owners. “If we look at a service going from Asia to the US East Coast, most of the carriers deploy 8,000-TEU to 15,000-TEU tonnage calling at probably four ports,” he said. “With this new regulation that imposes a cost of $1 million per port call, that’s $4 million. If you move an average volume of 10,000 TEUs, it is $800 per 40-foot container.” At current US East Coast rates, Toft said that would be close to a 25% increase. But he said the impact on the trans-Atlantic would be even more severe. “If we go to the trans-Atlantic, it gets even worse,” he said. “We are moving 4,000 to 5,000 TEUs and we also call four ports, so that cost will be $1,000 per FEU, which more or less eliminates the freight rate.” <h3>Port congestion would result </h3>The deadline to submit industry comments on the USTR proposal is at the end of March. The World Shipping Council — of which Toft is the chairman — labeled the move as “draconian,” while Jonathan Gold, the National Retail Federation’s vice president of supply chain and customs policy, called for the industry to stand up and “make its voice heard.” Toft said if the costs of the USTR proposal could not be passed on to customers, the modifications to carrier networks could lead to fast-growing bottlenecks as volume was rerouted. “If we continue to serve trades with fewer ports ... we could very quickly enter a situation where there will be port congestion,” he said. “We won’t need much more than a 5% to 10% increase in volume for things to change.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Long Beach, California — Mediterranean Shipping Co. will need to withdraw tonnage and drastically revise its US coverage if the Trump administration’s proposal to tax Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports is implemented, CEO Soren Toft told the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference Monday. The head of the world’s largest ocean carrier said the significant costs that would be imposed on carriers — in excess of $1 million per US port rotation — would make some routes unviable. “The trans-Atlantic will be uneconomical if we can’t pass on the costs, so we would have to withdraw that capacity and deploy it where it makes more sense,” Toft warned, adding that the “marginal ports” in US strings would have to be looked at. “In California today we typically call at Long Beach then proceed to Oakland,” he said. “But we can’t proceed to Oakland if that costs us another $1 million. A lot of the marginal ports, the peripheral ports, will be at risk and we will have to adapt our services.” Following the conclusion of an investigation into anti-competitive practices of China’s shipbuilding industry that was initiated during the Biden administration, the US Trade Representative (USTR) last month released its suggested remedies , including fees up to $1 million for Chinese-operated ships calling US ports. Toft provided an example of the costs that would need to be passed on to cargo owners. “If we look at a service going from Asia to the US East Coast, most of the carriers deploy 8,000-TEU to 15,000-TEU tonnage calling at probably four ports,” he said. “With this new regulation that imposes a cost of $1 million per port call, that’s $4 million. If you move an average volume of 10,000 TEUs, it is $800 per 40-foot container.” At current US East Coast rates, Toft said that would be close to a 25% increase. But he said the impact on the trans-Atlantic would be even more severe. “If we go to the trans-Atlantic, it gets even worse,” he said. “We are moving 4,000 to 5,000 TEUs and we also call four ports, so that cost will be $1,000 per FEU, which more or less eliminates the freight rate.” Port congestion would result The deadline to submit industry comments on the USTR proposal is at the end of March. The World Shipping Council — of which Toft is the chairman — labeled the move as “draconian,” while Jonathan Gold, the National Retail Federation’s vice president of supply chain and customs policy, called for the industry to stand up and “make its voice heard.” Toft said if the costs of the USTR proposal could not be passed on to customers, the modifications to carrier networks could lead to fast-growing bottlenecks as volume was rerouted. “If we continue to serve trades with fewer ports ... we could very quickly enter a situation where there will be port congestion,” he said. “We won’t need much more than a 5% to 10% increase in volume for things to change.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Port News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

North American ports

TPM25: Port tax on Chinese ships will make some routes unviable: MSC’s Toft

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">John Bolton, who served as Donald Trump’s national security advisor from 2018–19, said China is gauging its next global moves through how the US responds to the war in the Ukraine.</div>

John Bolton, who served as Donald Trump’s national security advisor from 2018–19, said China is gauging its next global moves through how the US responds to the war in the Ukraine.

<div class="phx-topic">Long Beach, California — The Trump administration’s moves to withdraw the US from long-standing alliances and security guarantees puts global supply chains more at risk, former national security advisor and UN ambassador John Bolton said Monday. US naval power, which guarantees freedom of navigation for commercial shipping, is also currently inadequate to counter global threats, Bolton told the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference here. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5951877_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Bolton said Russia, China and Iran face their own weaknesses in the long term that could stem their hegemonic ambitions across the world. But the US is not currently able to capitalize on those weaknesses due to Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO and his wavering of US support for Taiwan. “I don’t think it’s inevitable that we will retreat further,” Bolton said. “I think the answer to that question is obvious: A weaker America leads to a more unstable world, a more chaotic world, or a world where our adversaries step into the vacuum.” Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor from 2018–19, said China is gauging its next global moves through how the US responds to the war in the Ukraine. The Trump administration’s signaling of support for Russia and threats to withdraw military aid for Ukraine prod China to further its global aims, he said. Along with China’s goal to reunite Taiwan with the mainland, Bolton said China is also threatening Japan and South Korea’s commercial shipping lanes through building military bases and asserting territorial claims in the eastern Pacific. Yet the Trump administration appears non-committal on supporting its Indo-Pacific allies against China, he said. Bolton said Trump resents Taiwan’s leading market share in the semiconductor industry and publicly questioned the value of defending Taiwan, given its small size relative to China. Trump also expressed ignorance about the 2021 agreement between the US, United Kingdom and Australia to defend freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region. “That has an enormous potential impact on ships that are sailing through those waters carrying commerce to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan,” Bolton said. A direct attack on Taiwan by China is not likely as a war would destroy much of the island’s factories and other productive capacity that China ultimately wants, Bolton said. It’s more likely China would use a pretext for launching a naval blockade of the island, waiting to see if the US will respond. <h3>‘American weakness is provocative’ </h3>Other non-US moves also put commercial shipping lanes at risk, Bolton said. The UK is ceding control of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to the local population, which could jeopardize the future of a US military base on Diego Garcia. Bolton said ceding control of the Chagos Islands could allow the Chinese to assert more power in the Indian Ocean. However, many of the world’s aggressors face their own problems. Bolton said Russia and Iran’s regimes have weak governance structures that could mean power vacuums once their current leaders are gone. China, too, faces a population decline and the resulting economic problems that could hinder its global ambitions. Bolton said there’s an opportunity for Israel to launch attacks on Iran’s nuclear capability now. That would undermine Iran’s ability to support Yemen’s Houthi rebels, potentially reducing the attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The US, though, is not well placed currently to assert freedom-of-navigation for commercial shipping, Bolton said, citing a nearly 100-ship deficit in the US Navy’s fleet. Reversing that decline and reasserting global alliances requires serious thought about America’s role in the world, he said. “American strength is not provocative,” Bolton said. “American weakness is provocative and we’re showing a lot of provocation these days.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Long Beach, California — The Trump administration’s moves to withdraw the US from long-standing alliances and security guarantees puts global supply chains more at risk, former national security advisor and UN ambassador John Bolton said Monday. US naval power, which guarantees freedom of navigation for commercial shipping, is also currently inadequate to counter global threats, Bolton told the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference here. Bolton said Russia, China and Iran face their own weaknesses in the long term that could stem their hegemonic ambitions across the world. But the US is not currently able to capitalize on those weaknesses due to Donald Trump’s threats to withdraw from NATO and his wavering of US support for Taiwan. “I don’t think it’s inevitable that we will retreat further,” Bolton said. “I think the answer to that question is obvious: A weaker America leads to a more unstable world, a more chaotic world, or a world where our adversaries step into the vacuum.” Bolton, who served as Trump’s national security advisor from 2018–19, said China is gauging its next global moves through how the US responds to the war in the Ukraine. The Trump administration’s signaling of support for Russia and threats to withdraw military aid for Ukraine prod China to further its global aims, he said. Along with China’s goal to reunite Taiwan with the mainland, Bolton said China is also threatening Japan and South Korea’s commercial shipping lanes through building military bases and asserting territorial claims in the eastern Pacific. Yet the Trump administration appears non-committal on supporting its Indo-Pacific allies against China, he said. Bolton said Trump resents Taiwan’s leading market share in the semiconductor industry and publicly questioned the value of defending Taiwan, given its small size relative to China. Trump also expressed ignorance about the 2021 agreement between the US, United Kingdom and Australia to defend freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific region. “That has an enormous potential impact on ships that are sailing through those waters carrying commerce to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan,” Bolton said. A direct attack on Taiwan by China is not likely as a war would destroy much of the island’s factories and other productive capacity that China ultimately wants, Bolton said. It’s more likely China would use a pretext for launching a naval blockade of the island, waiting to see if the US will respond. ‘American weakness is provocative’ Other non-US moves also put commercial shipping lanes at risk, Bolton said. The UK is ceding control of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean to the local population, which could jeopardize the future of a US military base on Diego Garcia. Bolton said ceding control of the Chagos Islands could allow the Chinese to assert more power in the Indian Ocean. However, many of the world’s aggressors face their own problems. Bolton said Russia and Iran’s regimes have weak governance structures that could mean power vacuums once their current leaders are gone. China, too, faces a population decline and the resulting economic problems that could hinder its global ambitions. Bolton said there’s an opportunity for Israel to launch attacks on Iran’s nuclear capability now. That would undermine Iran’s ability to support Yemen’s Houthi rebels, potentially reducing the attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea. The US, though, is not well placed currently to assert freedom-of-navigation for commercial shipping, Bolton said, citing a nearly 100-ship deficit in the US Navy’s fleet. Reversing that decline and reasserting global alliances requires serious thought about America’s role in the world, he said. “American strength is not provocative,” Bolton said. “American weakness is provocative and we’re showing a lot of provocation these days.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

TPM25: Growing US isolationism threatens global supply chains: Bolton

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier’s new investment push seems to be an attempt to catch up with its peers, particularly MSC, which has dedicated terminals at Mundra and Ennore/Chennai through joint venture arrangements with Adani.</div>

The carrier’s new investment push seems to be an attempt to catch up with its peers, particularly MSC, which has dedicated terminals at Mundra and Ennore/Chennai through joint venture arrangements with Adani.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk is <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Fmaersk-joins-indian-shipbuilding-race-amid-government-incentives-china-pivot-5946747&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ckevin.saville2%40spglobal.com%7Cbf795d5cb03144ea34aa08dd5a480169%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C638765987479319448%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=%2Fn%2BHDOUKGomlVGJNspO46t3aciIhCJsbhyq9imu8ZpU%3D&amp;reserved=0">amplifying its Indian playbook</a> amid strong trade growth expectations propelled by diversifying Asian supply chains and new industry competition as ocean network dynamics resettle. The Danish carrier has committed a further $5 billion investment in the development of ports and other inland infrastructure projects in India, company officials told the Journal of Commerce Friday at the naming ceremony for the dual-fuel Albert Maersk in Nhava Sheva Port (Mumbai). “India is among the world’s fastest-growing major economies, with a thriving manufacturing sector, a booming e-commerce industry and expanding exports,” said Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc. “Shipping and logistics are high on India’s priorities, and Maersk looks forward to partnering with India on various aspects.” In the first phase, the group plans to enhance cargo infrastructure at APM Terminals Pipavav, adding berths and deepening the channel beyond its current 48 feet at an estimated cost of $2 billion. This push comes as APM’s concession rights at Pipavav are due to end in 2028, thus potentially creating a case for renewal. Equipped with multipurpose facilities that include a 1.35-million-TEU container terminal, Pipavav is facing fierce regional competitive challenges for box trade growth, especially from Adani Ports’ Mundra Port. Maersk/APM operations in India include Gateway Terminals India at Nhava Sheva and 26 warehousing depots with the combined space totaling 350,000 square meters. “We believe we can play a role in reducing the cost of logistics by ensuring that our customers access all their supply chain needs in one place — from all modes of transportation to port handling to warehousing and distribution,” APM CEO Keith Svendsen told the Journal of Commerce. “We are ready to invest more in developing ports with low emissions and great efficiency that will help businesses grow and connect India with the global markets.” Officials also indicated Maersk’s interest in the <a href="https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.joc.com%2Farticle%2Findia-greenlights-9-billion-deep-sea-port-off-jnpt-to-attract-larger-calls-5243629&amp;data=05%7C02%7Ckevin.saville2%40spglobal.com%7Cbf795d5cb03144ea34aa08dd5a480169%7C8f3e36ea80394b4081a77dc0599e8645%7C1%7C0%7C638765987479338303%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJFbXB0eU1hcGkiOnRydWUsIlYiOiIwLjAuMDAwMCIsIlAiOiJXaW4zMiIsIkFOIjoiTWFpbCIsIldUIjoyfQ%3D%3D%7C0%7C%7C%7C&amp;sdata=HhX4jSwuknvMDjVQouHcebsFmIKvin7Mfp3Rx3%2FQVX8%3D&amp;reserved=0">Vadhavan Port project</a> near Nhava Sheva, and in extending its reach to the country’s East Coast, potentially in a minor port in Andhra Pradesh. The Albert Maersk is the 11th 16,592-TEU vessel in the carrier’s 18-ship order of dual-fuel methanol vessels scheduled for delivery through 2025 and joins the Angelica Maersk as part of the ME11 (India/Europe) service fleet. “Although vessel capacities have by now already reached optimal levels, new generation vessels with alternate fuels are the need of the hour,” Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines Association (India), told the Journal of Commerce. <h3>Keeping up with competitors </h3>On a broader view, Maersk’s new investment push seems to be an attempt to catch up with its peers, particularly Mediterranean Shipping Co. MSC has dedicated terminals at Mundra and Ennore/Chennai through joint venture arrangements with Adani, as well as at Tuticorin via the Bollore Africa acquisition. CMA CGM also has a joint venture with Adani at Mundra and runs a terminal at Nhava Sheva in partnership with Mumbai-based JM Baxi Group, while Maersk’s Gemini partner Hapag-Lloyd owns 40% of JM Ports &amp; Logistics, which holds terminal concessions at multiple locations in India. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Maersk is amplifying its Indian playbook amid strong trade growth expectations propelled by diversifying Asian supply chains and new industry competition as ocean network dynamics resettle. The Danish carrier has committed a further $5 billion investment in the development of ports and other inland infrastructure projects in India, company officials told the Journal of Commerce Friday at the naming ceremony for the dual-fuel Albert Maersk in Nhava Sheva Port (Mumbai). “India is among the world’s fastest-growing major economies, with a thriving manufacturing sector, a booming e-commerce industry and expanding exports,” said Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc. “Shipping and logistics are high on India’s priorities, and Maersk looks forward to partnering with India on various aspects.” In the first phase, the group plans to enhance cargo infrastructure at APM Terminals Pipavav, adding berths and deepening the channel beyond its current 48 feet at an estimated cost of $2 billion. This push comes as APM’s concession rights at Pipavav are due to end in 2028, thus potentially creating a case for renewal. Equipped with multipurpose facilities that include a 1.35-million-TEU container terminal, Pipavav is facing fierce regional competitive challenges for box trade growth, especially from Adani Ports’ Mundra Port. Maersk/APM operations in India include Gateway Terminals India at Nhava Sheva and 26 warehousing depots with the combined space totaling 350,000 square meters. “We believe we can play a role in reducing the cost of logistics by ensuring that our customers access all their supply chain needs in one place — from all modes of transportation to port handling to warehousing and distribution,” APM CEO Keith Svendsen told the Journal of Commerce. “We are ready to invest more in developing ports with low emissions and great efficiency that will help businesses grow and connect India with the global markets.” Officials also indicated Maersk’s interest in the Vadhavan Port project near Nhava Sheva, and in extending its reach to the country’s East Coast, potentially in a minor port in Andhra Pradesh. The Albert Maersk is the 11th 16,592-TEU vessel in the carrier’s 18-ship order of dual-fuel methanol vessels scheduled for delivery through 2025 and joins the Angelica Maersk as part of the ME11 (India/Europe) service fleet. “Although vessel capacities have by now already reached optimal levels, new generation vessels with alternate fuels are the need of the hour,” Sunil Vaswani, executive director of the Container Shipping Lines Association (India), told the Journal of Commerce. Keeping up with competitors On a broader view, Maersk’s new investment push seems to be an attempt to catch up with its peers, particularly Mediterranean Shipping Co. MSC has dedicated terminals at Mundra and Ennore/Chennai through joint venture arrangements with Adani, as well as at Tuticorin via the Bollore Africa acquisition. CMA CGM also has a joint venture with Adani at Mundra and runs a terminal at Nhava Sheva in partnership with Mumbai-based JM Baxi Group, while Maersk’s Gemini partner Hapag-Lloyd owns 40% of JM Ports & Logistics, which holds terminal concessions at multiple locations in India. Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

International ports

Maersk tees up $5 billion investment plan for Indian market expansion

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Manufacturers are offering diverse views on the outlook for the wind sector, with onshore faring better than offshore in the US and blade accidents upending momentum.</div>

Manufacturers are offering diverse views on the outlook for the wind sector, with onshore faring better than offshore in the US and blade accidents upending momentum.

<div class="phx-topic">After reporting gains in equipment orders from their latest earnings period, four of the world’s largest original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of wind turbines are bracing for blowback from changes to US wind policies in an already challenged industry. Two of those companies, Siemens Gamesa and GE Vernova, continue to mitigate problems related to blade defects. The other two companies, Vestas and Nordex SE, remain bullish on growth regardless of US developments.The breakbulk and project logistics sector relies on turbines for onshore and offshore wind farms as a key cargo source. But in the US, offshore and onshore wind development is at a standstill following an executive order from President Donald Trump to freeze approvals, renewals and permits for wind projects on federal lands and waters. Globally, the industry has also had to contend with project interruptions, high interest rates and rising commodity costs over the past few years. Nordex CEO José Luis Blanco told Reuters on Feb. 27 that the German OEM, which primarily serves the onshore wind segment, also expects continued growth in the US market despite the new administration’s policies. “Whatever the scenario in the US, even worst-case scenario, we can still deliver our guidance,” Blanco said.In its 2024 earnings report, released Feb. 27, Nordex projected a 49% increase in its onshore turbine installations in 2025, including a 68% increase in Europe and a 78% increase in North America, led by Canada.Nordex’s overall order intake grew 20% to a record $7.8 billion in 2024, while sales increased 12.5% to $7.6 billion. Denmark’s Vestas is forecasting further growth in 2025 as it fulfills a record-high backlog of combined onshore and offshore orders, which grew 14% to $71.7 billion in 2024, largely because of offshore. The company’s order intake for the year rose 4% to $20.1 billion.In Vestas’ Feb. 5 earnings call, CEO Henrik Anderson said the company is continuing to ramp up its investments in the US despite the Trump administration’s executive order. “I think the offshore has come to a stop, more or less with immediate effect,” Anderson said. “But when it comes to the onshore backlog, we are well covered for ’25. We are well covered a long distance into ’26.” Along with Germany and Australia, the US was one of Vestas’ top three onshore markets in 2024. <h3>Turbine troubles continue</h3>Equipment defects continue to overshadow financial gains for GE Vernova and Siemens Gamesa.On Feb. 22, two maintenance workers died at a Nebraska wind farm after falling off a GE Vernova turbine. Law enforcement officials said the workers experienced an “equipment failure,” but did not elaborate further. The deaths remain under investigation.The incident comes after a 351-foot-long blade from the Vineyard Wind project off the Massachusetts coast broke off a GE Vernova turbine and fell into the Atlantic Ocean last July. At US-based GE Vernova, offshore wind performance languished in 2024 as the company recorded $1 billion in lost contract dollars that the company attributed in part to the Vineyard Wind blade failure. GE Vernova is anticipating an “inflection point” in onshore markets as the company continues efforts to turn around its wind business, according to its chief executive. “We are cautious on when that inflection point is going to come in North America,” CEO Scott Strazik said during a Jan. 22 earnings call for GE Vernova’s first full-year results since becoming an independent company. Fourth-quarter revenues increased 20% to $3.1 billion on higher onshore wind equipment deliveries, while the company’s onshore wind business delivered its most profitable quarter in three years. In the US, GE Vernova secured more than 1 gigawatt (GW) of onshore wind orders for 2024, a 76% increase from the previous year. But with offshore and onshore business combined, wind equipment orders fell 41% to $2 billion for the year and 38% to $7.1 billion for the quarter. Meanwhile, Spain’s Siemens Gamesa continues to grapple with major flaws in some of its installed onshore turbines. The company’s latest setback came in January when one of the company’s 5.X blades broke off a turbine at a Swedish onshore wind farm for the second time since November. Technical defects have bogged down Siemens Gamesa since June 2023, when major flaws were discovered in 15% to 30% of the manufacturer’s already installed 4.X and 5.X onshore wind turbines. Sales of those two turbines were put on hold, although Siemens returned its 4.X model to the market in September 2024.Siemens Gamesa’s Feb. 12 quarterly earnings remarks indicated that the company is pinning its hopes on developments in the global offshore wind market, which helped drive orders while offsetting declines related to defective onshore turbines. Orders for the fiscal first quarter, which ended Dec. 31, increased 52% to $2.6 billion, while revenues grew 18% to $2.5 billion. In its Feb. 12 quarterly earnings remarks, German parent company Siemens Energy AG attributed the growth to a $1.5 billion turbine order for a wind farm in the North Sea. “The successful auctions in South Korea and Japan indicate that offshore wind is regaining momentum,” Christian Bruch, CEO of Siemens Energy AG, told investors, referring to offshore wind auctions the two countries held in December.Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>.</div>

After reporting gains in equipment orders from their latest earnings period, four of the world’s largest original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of wind turbines are bracing for blowback from changes to US wind policies in an already challenged industry. Two of those companies, Siemens Gamesa and GE Vernova, continue to mitigate problems related to blade defects. The other two companies, Vestas and Nordex SE, remain bullish on growth regardless of US developments. The breakbulk and project logistics sector relies on turbines for onshore and offshore wind farms as a key cargo source. But in the US, offshore and onshore wind development is at a standstill following an executive order from President Donald Trump to freeze approvals, renewals and permits for wind projects on federal lands and waters. Globally, the industry has also had to contend with project interruptions, high interest rates and rising commodity costs over the past few years. Nordex CEO José Luis Blanco told Reuters on Feb. 27 that the German OEM, which primarily serves the onshore wind segment, also expects continued growth in the US market despite the new administration’s policies. “Whatever the scenario in the US, even worst-case scenario, we can still deliver our guidance,” Blanco said. In its 2024 earnings report, released Feb. 27, Nordex projected a 49% increase in its onshore turbine installations in 2025, including a 68% increase in Europe and a 78% increase in North America, led by Canada. Nordex’s overall order intake grew 20% to a record $7.8 billion in 2024, while sales increased 12.5% to $7.6 billion. Denmark’s Vestas is forecasting further growth in 2025 as it fulfills a record-high backlog of combined onshore and offshore orders, which grew 14% to $71.7 billion in 2024, largely because of offshore. The company’s order intake for the year rose 4% to $20.1 billion. In Vestas’ Feb. 5 earnings call, CEO Henrik Anderson said the company is continuing to ramp up its investments in the US despite the Trump administration’s executive order. “I think the offshore has come to a stop, more or less with immediate effect,” Anderson said. “But when it comes to the onshore backlog, we are well covered for ’25. We are well covered a long distance into ’26.” Along with Germany and Australia, the US was one of Vestas’ top three onshore markets in 2024. Turbine troubles continue Equipment defects continue to overshadow financial gains for GE Vernova and Siemens Gamesa. On Feb. 22, two maintenance workers died at a Nebraska wind farm after falling off a GE Vernova turbine. Law enforcement officials said the workers experienced an “equipment failure,” but did not elaborate further. The deaths remain under investigation. The incident comes after a 351-foot-long blade from the Vineyard Wind project off the Massachusetts coast broke off a GE Vernova turbine and fell into the Atlantic Ocean last July. At US-based GE Vernova, offshore wind performance languished in 2024 as the company recorded $1 billion in lost contract dollars that the company attributed in part to the Vineyard Wind blade failure. GE Vernova is anticipating an “inflection point” in onshore markets as the company continues efforts to turn around its wind business, according to its chief executive. “We are cautious on when that inflection point is going to come in North America,” CEO Scott Strazik said during a Jan. 22 earnings call for GE Vernova’s first full-year results since becoming an independent company. Fourth-quarter revenues increased 20% to $3.1 billion on higher onshore wind equipment deliveries, while the company’s onshore wind business delivered its most profitable quarter in three years. In the US, GE Vernova secured more than 1 gigawatt (GW) of onshore wind orders for 2024, a 76% increase from the previous year. But with offshore and onshore business combined, wind equipment orders fell 41% to $2 billion for the year and 38% to $7.1 billion for the quarter. Meanwhile, Spain’s Siemens Gamesa continues to grapple with major flaws in some of its installed onshore turbines. The company’s latest setback came in January when one of the company’s 5.X blades broke off a turbine at a Swedish onshore wind farm for the second time since November. Technical defects have bogged down Siemens Gamesa since June 2023, when major flaws were discovered in 15% to 30% of the manufacturer’s already installed 4.X and 5.X onshore wind turbines. Sales of those two turbines were put on hold, although Siemens returned its 4.X model to the market in September 2024. Siemens Gamesa’s Feb. 12 quarterly earnings remarks indicated that the company is pinning its hopes on developments in the global offshore wind market, which helped drive orders while offsetting declines related to defective onshore turbines. Orders for the fiscal first quarter, which ended Dec. 31, increased 52% to $2.6 billion, while revenues grew 18% to $2.5 billion. In its Feb. 12 quarterly earnings remarks, German parent company Siemens Energy AG attributed the growth to a $1.5 billion turbine order for a wind farm in the North Sea. “The successful auctions in South Korea and Japan indicate that offshore wind is regaining momentum,” Christian Bruch, CEO of Siemens Energy AG, told investors, referring to offshore wind auctions the two countries held in December. Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Energy projects

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Wind turbine orders propel OEMs amid stalled US development, blade defects

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">No matter what changes occur, a FedEx Freight spinoff as a standalone LTL carrier will be good for the entire industry, writes Satish Jindel.</div>

No matter what changes occur, a FedEx Freight spinoff as a standalone LTL carrier will be good for the entire industry, writes Satish Jindel.

<div class="phx-topic">On June 25, 2024, during an earnings call, FedEx leaders announced that the company’s board had authorized management to explore options for a sale or spinoff of FedEx Freight, and that a decision would be announced by the end of the year. On Dec. 19, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fedex-freight-spinoff-is-latest-move-to-reshape-us-ltl-market-5909683">the leadership announced that a spinoff</a> was the best option and would be completed over 18 months. Why tell the shareholders and the less-than-truckload (LTL) market of this move if it is not happening for many months? Now, competitors and shippers can prepare for the various changes that could result from the FedEx Freight spinoff. Competing carriers and shippers should benefit from FedEx’s Priority and Economy services getting merged for a number of reasons. While the parcel market supports express and ground services, the FedEx Express volume has been shrinking for many years, with FedEx Ground now representing over 80% of total parcel volume. So, if there is a rationale to merge the Express and Ground parcel networks, FedEx Freight’s Priority and Economy services should also be merged. The premium for the Priority service price is so small that it does not make up for the various costs related to offering two services. If the two services were so appealing and financially rewarding, other LTL carriers would have done the same. Yet after 12 years, no other LTL carrier has followed suit. Many LTL carriers with just one service are generating operating margins better than 14.5% of FedEx Freight. As the LTL industry speeds up the transit times on high-volume lanes, the gap between Priority and Economy services will shrink. <h3>Greater role for technology </h3>While the parent company wants to spin it off as FedEx Freight, expect the new board to rename it American Freightways. With relief from intercompany charges of $528 million during fiscal year 2024 paid to FedEx Corporation for marketing, sales, technology and billing support, the spinoff will save FedEx Freight a few hundred million dollars by handling those corporate support functions itself. If it uses that money to go for greater market share with pricing initiatives, it could be good news for shippers. Shippers should get ready for a greater role of technology. With the National Motor Freight Traffic Association finally adopting dimensional pricing, there will be a greater need by shippers and carriers to capture shipment dimensions. This change should ensure more accurate billing and reduce the cost for auditing all freight bills for proper classification. With shippers being required to pay greater attention to the dimensions of the pallets, they can expect FedEx Freight support to improve their palletizing just as FedEx helps parcel customers improve their packaging. Because there are practically no appointment deliveries in the parcel business, expect FedEx Freight to embrace opportunities with AI to reduce the number of appointment deliveries, which should help shippers avoid charges for such service. We can also expect FedEx Freight to take greater interest in participating in LTL industry conferences and contributing its shipment data to SMC3’s national LTL database. No matter which of these changes occur, a FedEx Freight spinoff as a standalone LTL carrier will be good for the entire industry. And for those wondering why FedEx needs 18 months to spin off Freight, just imagine the pressure on the board and leadership that may find that investors are valuing its LTL business at a higher market cap than its parcel business, which is generating just a 5.5% margin compared with 14.5% for LTL business. Contact Satish Jindel at <a href="mailto:info@shipmatrix.com">info@shipmatrix.com</a>. </div>

On June 25, 2024, during an earnings call, FedEx leaders announced that the company’s board had authorized management to explore options for a sale or spinoff of FedEx Freight, and that a decision would be announced by the end of the year. On Dec. 19, the leadership announced that a spinoff was the best option and would be completed over 18 months. Why tell the shareholders and the less-than-truckload (LTL) market of this move if it is not happening for many months? Now, competitors and shippers can prepare for the various changes that could result from the FedEx Freight spinoff. Competing carriers and shippers should benefit from FedEx’s Priority and Economy services getting merged for a number of reasons. While the parcel market supports express and ground services, the FedEx Express volume has been shrinking for many years, with FedEx Ground now representing over 80% of total parcel volume. So, if there is a rationale to merge the Express and Ground parcel networks, FedEx Freight’s Priority and Economy services should also be merged. The premium for the Priority service price is so small that it does not make up for the various costs related to offering two services. If the two services were so appealing and financially rewarding, other LTL carriers would have done the same. Yet after 12 years, no other LTL carrier has followed suit. Many LTL carriers with just one service are generating operating margins better than 14.5% of FedEx Freight. As the LTL industry speeds up the transit times on high-volume lanes, the gap between Priority and Economy services will shrink. Greater role for technology While the parent company wants to spin it off as FedEx Freight, expect the new board to rename it American Freightways. With relief from intercompany charges of $528 million during fiscal year 2024 paid to FedEx Corporation for marketing, sales, technology and billing support, the spinoff will save FedEx Freight a few hundred million dollars by handling those corporate support functions itself. If it uses that money to go for greater market share with pricing initiatives, it could be good news for shippers. Shippers should get ready for a greater role of technology. With the National Motor Freight Traffic Association finally adopting dimensional pricing, there will be a greater need by shippers and carriers to capture shipment dimensions. This change should ensure more accurate billing and reduce the cost for auditing all freight bills for proper classification. With shippers being required to pay greater attention to the dimensions of the pallets, they can expect FedEx Freight support to improve their palletizing just as FedEx helps parcel customers improve their packaging. Because there are practically no appointment deliveries in the parcel business, expect FedEx Freight to embrace opportunities with AI to reduce the number of appointment deliveries, which should help shippers avoid charges for such service. We can also expect FedEx Freight to take greater interest in participating in LTL industry conferences and contributing its shipment data to SMC3’s national LTL database. No matter which of these changes occur, a FedEx Freight spinoff as a standalone LTL carrier will be good for the entire industry. And for those wondering why FedEx needs 18 months to spin off Freight, just imagine the pressure on the board and leadership that may find that investors are valuing its LTL business at a higher market cap than its parcel business, which is generating just a 5.5% margin compared with 14.5% for LTL business. Contact Satish Jindel at info@shipmatrix.com .

How the LTL market could evolve as the FedEx Freight spinoff plays out

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">What we have today in containerization is the opposite of Malcom McLean’s vision, writes Ted Prince — a vertically integrated enterprise of cost centers has been replaced by a network of profit centers that closely resembles the intermodal rail world.</div>

What we have today in containerization is the opposite of Malcom McLean’s vision, writes Ted Prince — a vertically integrated enterprise of cost centers has been replaced by a network of profit centers that closely resembles the intermodal rail world.

<div class="phx-topic">The Journal of Commerce’s roots extend back to 1827, when Samuel Morse and partners started a newspaper in New York. In 1844, Morse effectively started the telecommunications revolution. His first telegraph message asked, “What hath God wrought?” To many, the answer to that question might have been the development of containerization by Malcom McLean of Maxton, North Carolina. McLean’s transportation roots were in less-than-truckload (LTL). He was an early pioneer; McLean Trucking was founded in 1934 — the same year as the Motor Carrier Act of 1934 — and at one time was the fourth-largest motor carrier in the United States. This Motor Carrier Act followed traditional regulatory thinking. To ensure sufficient capacity, carriers were granted monopolies in the form of operating authorities. With tobacco a highly rated commodity, this was an incredibly lucrative business. These profits supported the acquisition of other motor carriers and the seed capital to start containerization. What the hagiography of McLean frequently omits is that he was not perfect. He twice “bet the company” on oil prices — and got it wrong both times. The development of high-speed container ships known as SL-7s were deployed in 1972 and 1973 during the first fuel shock. The ships’ high operating costs destroyed any profitability, and they were sold to the United States Navy in 1981 and 1982. In 1969, McLean sold Sea-Land to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. In 1978, McLean purchased United States Lines and built a fleet of 4,400-TEU container ships. These were the largest ships at the time and were designed to operate in around-the-world services. Following the second oil shock of 1979, these vessels were designed to be fuel-efficient — albeit slow. When oil prices cratered five years later, so did US Lines. <h3>A ‘grander strategy’</h3>While the SL-7s and EconoShips are well-known aspects of McLean’s legacy, I think it is worthwhile exploring his grander strategy. SeaLand was vertically integrated — deploying his ships, calling his terminals, utilizing cranes of his specifications, carrying his containers, and moving on his chassis. While this model was emulated by many of those that followed, it is worthwhile to think about what has changed since then — and what it means today. Independent vessel strings are mostly a thing of the past. Vessel-sharing agreements (VSAs) have given way to global alliances — not to mention outright acquisitions. SeaLand–Maersk was an early VSA that ultimately led to Maersk acquiring SeaLand. This is a reflection of the need for economies of scope and scale — alongside density and service frequency — that are table stakes in today’s liner shipping world. By the early 1960s, McLean’s concept for standardized shipping containers gave rise to the container leasing industry. Sea Containers was an early entrant that was followed by others. This was a reflection that the capital-intensive nature of liner shipping made it almost impossible for a carrier to invest in everything. It was also a realization that economies of scale were sometimes beyond the reach of a single entity. While the chassis was necessary to provide pickup and delivery, carrier provision of chassis was limited to the United States. McLean was a trucker at heart and couldn’t imagine not having his own wheels. This decision haunted the industry for decades. Finally, in 2012, Maersk sold its chassis-leasing subsidiary, Direct ChassisLink, Inc. (DCLI), to a private equity firm. In an industry where most want to be second, almost every other line followed. Marine terminals were the last to be unbundled — perhaps because lines viewed them as their “crown jewels,” or perhaps because of their high price tags. These investments became popular with infrastructure funds and their pension fund investors. What we have today is the opposite of McLean’s vision. A vertically integrated enterprise of cost centers has been replaced by a network of profit centers that closely resembles the intermodal rail world. Whereas the former would inevitably cross-subsidize separate components through intricate transfer pricing, the latter has created a world of cutthroat capitalism. The impacts are not always clear. Container and chassis providers claim that they offer savings; however, their line customers may not agree — perhaps because they lack the sophistication to ascertain the true cost of ownership and operation. The impact on marine terminals is much more pervasive. Whereas an ocean carrier might have previously absorbed some additional costs (e.g., extra gates, third shifts, etc.) in a holistic service perspective, today’s terminals have owners that demand profitability across the spectrum. Our industry, despite its global scale, is still relatively young. We are living Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction that he believed is essential for capitalism and economic growth. New innovations replace old ones. McLean’s innovations were essential, but not timeless. Our industry is essential, and the only certainty is change. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>.</div>

The Journal of Commerce’s roots extend back to 1827, when Samuel Morse and partners started a newspaper in New York. In 1844, Morse effectively started the telecommunications revolution. His first telegraph message asked, “What hath God wrought?” To many, the answer to that question might have been the development of containerization by Malcom McLean of Maxton, North Carolina. McLean’s transportation roots were in less-than-truckload (LTL). He was an early pioneer; McLean Trucking was founded in 1934 — the same year as the Motor Carrier Act of 1934 — and at one time was the fourth-largest motor carrier in the United States. This Motor Carrier Act followed traditional regulatory thinking. To ensure sufficient capacity, carriers were granted monopolies in the form of operating authorities. With tobacco a highly rated commodity, this was an incredibly lucrative business. These profits supported the acquisition of other motor carriers and the seed capital to start containerization. What the hagiography of McLean frequently omits is that he was not perfect. He twice “bet the company” on oil prices — and got it wrong both times. The development of high-speed container ships known as SL-7s were deployed in 1972 and 1973 during the first fuel shock. The ships’ high operating costs destroyed any profitability, and they were sold to the United States Navy in 1981 and 1982. In 1969, McLean sold Sea-Land to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company. In 1978, McLean purchased United States Lines and built a fleet of 4,400-TEU container ships. These were the largest ships at the time and were designed to operate in around-the-world services. Following the second oil shock of 1979, these vessels were designed to be fuel-efficient — albeit slow. When oil prices cratered five years later, so did US Lines. A ‘grander strategy’ While the SL-7s and EconoShips are well-known aspects of McLean’s legacy, I think it is worthwhile exploring his grander strategy. SeaLand was vertically integrated — deploying his ships, calling his terminals, utilizing cranes of his specifications, carrying his containers, and moving on his chassis. While this model was emulated by many of those that followed, it is worthwhile to think about what has changed since then — and what it means today. Independent vessel strings are mostly a thing of the past. Vessel-sharing agreements (VSAs) have given way to global alliances — not to mention outright acquisitions. SeaLand–Maersk was an early VSA that ultimately led to Maersk acquiring SeaLand. This is a reflection of the need for economies of scope and scale — alongside density and service frequency — that are table stakes in today’s liner shipping world. By the early 1960s, McLean’s concept for standardized shipping containers gave rise to the container leasing industry. Sea Containers was an early entrant that was followed by others. This was a reflection that the capital-intensive nature of liner shipping made it almost impossible for a carrier to invest in everything. It was also a realization that economies of scale were sometimes beyond the reach of a single entity. While the chassis was necessary to provide pickup and delivery, carrier provision of chassis was limited to the United States. McLean was a trucker at heart and couldn’t imagine not having his own wheels. This decision haunted the industry for decades. Finally, in 2012, Maersk sold its chassis-leasing subsidiary, Direct ChassisLink, Inc. (DCLI), to a private equity firm. In an industry where most want to be second, almost every other line followed. Marine terminals were the last to be unbundled — perhaps because lines viewed them as their “crown jewels,” or perhaps because of their high price tags. These investments became popular with infrastructure funds and their pension fund investors. What we have today is the opposite of McLean’s vision. A vertically integrated enterprise of cost centers has been replaced by a network of profit centers that closely resembles the intermodal rail world. Whereas the former would inevitably cross-subsidize separate components through intricate transfer pricing, the latter has created a world of cutthroat capitalism. The impacts are not always clear. Container and chassis providers claim that they offer savings; however, their line customers may not agree — perhaps because they lack the sophistication to ascertain the true cost of ownership and operation. The impact on marine terminals is much more pervasive. Whereas an ocean carrier might have previously absorbed some additional costs (e.g., extra gates, third shifts, etc.) in a holistic service perspective, today’s terminals have owners that demand profitability across the spectrum. Our industry, despite its global scale, is still relatively young. We are living Joseph Schumpeter’s theory of creative destruction that he believed is essential for capitalism and economic growth. New innovations replace old ones. McLean’s innovations were essential, but not timeless. Our industry is essential, and the only certainty is change. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

In appreciation of McLean’s essential, although not timeless, innovations

Index

{categoryX}: 
 {name} {categoryY.formatNumber('#.0%')} 

The *Journal of Commerce* Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) measures truck capacity at large, publicly traded trucking companies using end-of-quarter truck counts reported in their quarterly earnings statements. The index covers a group of full truckload carriers with combined annual revenue of more than $10 billion, using the group’s average truck count in the fourth quarter of 2006, prior to the Great Recession of 2007–09, as its base (Q4 2006 = 100). Large truckload carriers represent a core sector of capacity for high-volume shippers.

US truckload capacity index (JOC)

JOC Truckload Capacity Index Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Forwarders say demand expectations for trans-Pacific imports to North America are softening for the second quarter, forcing liners to reduce peak season surcharges that have been in place for almost a year. </div>

Forwarders say demand expectations for trans-Pacific imports to North America are softening for the second quarter, forcing liners to reduce peak season surcharges that have been in place for almost a year.

<div class="phx-topic">At least four ocean carriers on the eastbound trans-Pacific are cutting their peak season surcharges amid expectations for softening demand on the trade lane into the second quarter and as spot rates have fallen more than 30% over the past two weeks, forwarders say. The carriers include Hapag Lloyd, which halved its peak season surcharge (PSS) from $1,000 to $500 per FEU effective Feb. 20 through mid-March, sources said. A US-based non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) reported a $500 reduction on its PSS with Ocean Network Express (ONE) to $300 per FEU, a $300 PSS cut from CMA CGM to $1,200 per FEU, and a PSS drop from $1,000 to $800 per FEU from Zim Integrated Shipping Services. Other carriers have reduced their PSS figures to about $1,000 per FEU from $1,500, said the sources, who agreed that once a core number of carriers reduce their PSSs, most others follow suit. “Carriers are just hungry,” one non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) source told the Journal of Commerce. Most carrier PSSs, which are usually tacked on to an NVO’s fixed-rate named accounts, were implemented during a period of increased demand in early to mid-2024. That heightened demand coincided with tighter vessel capacity caused by <a href="mailto:https://www.joc.com/article/no-clear-timeline-for-red-sea-return-as-carriers-face-rising-insurance-costs-5946947">Red Sea diversions</a>. Those charges, however, have not been retracted after nearly a year — leading forwarders to question the true length of a “peak season.” While volumes in the eastbound trans-Pacific have been strong to start the year — US imports from Asia were up 12.7% year over year in January, according to Journal of Commerce sister product PIERS — importers may be taking a respite. Sources say frontloading ahead of US tariffs has resulted in stable inventories, and importers are hesitating to move cargo. Sufficient inventories, a slower-than-normal return to work in China following Lunar New Year and increasing economic uncertainty in the US have forwarders seeing a slowing in bookings. Several forwarder sources said they’re even hearing of low utilization on vessels leaving China this week. <h3>Degrading spot rates, delayed contracts </h3>An NVO source based in Canada said he is seeing US import volumes wane, especially amid new tariffs and the threat for more — leading carriers to push hard to nail down contracts. “Clients have existing purchase orders, and they’re fulfilling those — but new purchase orders are not happening right now,” the source said. “It’s because [shippers] just don’t know what is going to happen.” The spot rate from Asia to the West Coast was pegged at $2,600 per FEU on Friday, according to Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister company within S&amp;P Global, down from $4,000 per FEU on Feb. 5. “It’s not as if carriers will lay back and roll over,” said a second NVO source. “When we hit mid-March and we haven’t seen any demand improvement, we will start to see some service manipulation with <a href="mailto:https://www.joc.com/article/ocean-carriers-ever-tightening-grip-on-capacity-control-shows-no-signs-of-loosening-5946744">regards to capacity</a>.” Rapidly falling rates would put carriers in a tough spot during <a href="mailto:https://www.joc.com/article/small-trans-pac-forwarders-feeling-ignored-by-carriers-stay-agile-to-secure-capacity-5943785">contract season</a>, the source said. If spot rates continue to dissolve in March and April, it would minimize any leverage carriers have in talks with shippers over annual service contracts, most of which begin May 1. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

At least four ocean carriers on the eastbound trans-Pacific are cutting their peak season surcharges amid expectations for softening demand on the trade lane into the second quarter and as spot rates have fallen more than 30% over the past two weeks, forwarders say. The carriers include Hapag Lloyd, which halved its peak season surcharge (PSS) from $1,000 to $500 per FEU effective Feb. 20 through mid-March, sources said. A US-based non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) reported a $500 reduction on its PSS with Ocean Network Express (ONE) to $300 per FEU, a $300 PSS cut from CMA CGM to $1,200 per FEU, and a PSS drop from $1,000 to $800 per FEU from Zim Integrated Shipping Services. Other carriers have reduced their PSS figures to about $1,000 per FEU from $1,500, said the sources, who agreed that once a core number of carriers reduce their PSSs, most others follow suit. “Carriers are just hungry,” one non-vessel-operating common carrier (NVO) source told the Journal of Commerce. Most carrier PSSs, which are usually tacked on to an NVO’s fixed-rate named accounts, were implemented during a period of increased demand in early to mid-2024. That heightened demand coincided with tighter vessel capacity caused by Red Sea diversions . Those charges, however, have not been retracted after nearly a year — leading forwarders to question the true length of a “peak season.” While volumes in the eastbound trans-Pacific have been strong to start the year — US imports from Asia were up 12.7% year over year in January, according to Journal of Commerce sister product PIERS — importers may be taking a respite. Sources say frontloading ahead of US tariffs has resulted in stable inventories, and importers are hesitating to move cargo. Sufficient inventories, a slower-than-normal return to work in China following Lunar New Year and increasing economic uncertainty in the US have forwarders seeing a slowing in bookings. Several forwarder sources said they’re even hearing of low utilization on vessels leaving China this week. Degrading spot rates, delayed contracts An NVO source based in Canada said he is seeing US import volumes wane, especially amid new tariffs and the threat for more — leading carriers to push hard to nail down contracts. “Clients have existing purchase orders, and they’re fulfilling those — but new purchase orders are not happening right now,” the source said. “It’s because [shippers] just don’t know what is going to happen.” The spot rate from Asia to the West Coast was pegged at $2,600 per FEU on Friday, according to Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister company within S&P Global, down from $4,000 per FEU on Feb. 5. “It’s not as if carriers will lay back and roll over,” said a second NVO source. “When we hit mid-March and we haven’t seen any demand improvement, we will start to see some service manipulation with regards to capacity .” Rapidly falling rates would put carriers in a tough spot during contract season , the source said. If spot rates continue to dissolve in March and April, it would minimize any leverage carriers have in talks with shippers over annual service contracts, most of which begin May 1. Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

‘Hungry’ carriers slicing surcharges in eastbound trans-Pacific as bookings slow

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cargo tracking shows no clear advantage for Chinese-based ocean carriers transiting the critical waterway, throwing doubt on the US president’s claims of China’s influence, according to a report from the visibility data provider.</div>

Cargo tracking shows no clear advantage for Chinese-based ocean carriers transiting the critical waterway, throwing doubt on the US president’s claims of China’s influence, according to a report from the visibility data provider.

<div class="phx-topic">Despite Trump administration claims of China’s dominance over the Panama Canal, it remains unclear if that country’s ocean carriers reap any advantage in terms of access to faster transits, according to visibility data provider project44. Moreover, the split of canal terminal operators between US, Singapore and Taiwan-domiciled companies throws into question claims of Chinese control of Panama’s ports. Since his election, President Donald Trump has ratcheted up tensions with Panama, which took control of the canal in 1999, some 20 years after President Jimmy Carter signed a deal ceding a century of control by the US. Among Trump’s unsubstantiated claims are that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/fmc-chair-questions-level-playing-field-in-panama-canal-operations-5932469">Panama overcharges US customers</a> 	, including the US Navy for canal tolls and that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/bolder-trump-injects-new-volatility-into-container-shipping-5927954">China has undue leverage over the canal through its alleged control of port operations</a>, putting US supply chains at risk. As for whether China’s ocean carriers receive any preferential treatment at the canal, “there are no clear indications that this is occurring,” project44 said in a report Friday. It cited “thousands of shipments” p44 tracked transiting the canal over the last 13 months. “While Chinese carriers remain competitive, there is no clear sign of favoritism exhibited in the overall transit times,” p44 said. “Our analysis suggests that the performance of individual carriers has a stronger correlation with transit times than [a] carrier’s country of origin.” Vessels operated by Cosco Shipping appear to have an advantage in services between the southern Chinese port of Yantian and the US East Coast, according to p44’s cargo tracking. It said Cosco ships made the trip in an average of 43 days, compared with an industry-wide average of 48 days. But on the Shanghai-US East Coast route, CMA CGM showed a seven-day advantage over the industry average 37-day transit, p44 said, attributing this to the carrier’s “streamlined operations and high efficiency.” Mediterranean Shipping Co. also sees better-than-average transit times between Shanghai and US Southeast ports, p44 data shows. In early February, Panama President Jose Raul Mulino accused the US of “lies and falsehoods” related to a supposed deal to allow US naval ships priority access. Mulino has also denied claims of Chinese influence at the port. The Panama Canal Authority (ACP), an independent agency, administers the canal’s operations. While its board of directors are Panamanian, its advisory board includes, among others, William Flanagan, a former US Navy Commander in Chief for the Atlantic Fleet and NATO. Ship capacity is controlled through a reservation process, with tolls based on the type of ship and cargo. Last-minute reservations are also auctioned. <h3>Panama’s port ownership </h3>Operations of the Panama Canal’s major container terminals at the Atlantic ports of Colon and Cristobal and the Pacific port of Balboa have also been an issue for Trump. But the Chinese are hardly the sole overseas operators at the ports. CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-listed conglomerate with holdings in telecom and retail, owns Hutchison Ports, which has operated a 2 million-TEU terminal in Balboa since 1997. It also operates a 1 million-TEU port at Cristobal. A separate unit, Hutchison Port Holdings, is a Singapore-listed public investment trust for the conglomerate’s container terminals in China. A different Singapore-listed entity, PSA International, the former Port of Singapore Authority, operates another 1 million-TEU terminal in Balboa. SSA Marine, a Seattle-based portfolio company of US private equity firm Blackstone, has a concession for the 3-million-TEU Manzanillo terminal at Colon, while Taiwan’s <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/evergreen-takes-full-control-of-panama-transshipment-hub-5245803">Evergreen Marine also operates a 2 million-TEU terminal in Colon</a>. Michael Kristiansen, a principal at Panama-based advisory CK Americas and a 25-year veteran of Maersk, told the Journal of Commerce that claims of Chinese influence at the Panama Canal are “total BS.” Rather, he said Trump is likely using Panama as a wedge to counter any further Chinese investments in the Americas, referring to the 1 million-TEU Chancay terminal in Peru that Cosco Shipping helped develop. “The Trump administration is sending China a signal that this is the US’ backyard, especially after the inauguration of Chancay,” Kristiansen said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Despite Trump administration claims of China’s dominance over the Panama Canal, it remains unclear if that country’s ocean carriers reap any advantage in terms of access to faster transits, according to visibility data provider project44. Moreover, the split of canal terminal operators between US, Singapore and Taiwan-domiciled companies throws into question claims of Chinese control of Panama’s ports. Since his election, President Donald Trump has ratcheted up tensions with Panama, which took control of the canal in 1999, some 20 years after President Jimmy Carter signed a deal ceding a century of control by the US. Among Trump’s unsubstantiated claims are that Panama overcharges US customers , including the US Navy for canal tolls and that China has undue leverage over the canal through its alleged control of port operations , putting US supply chains at risk. As for whether China’s ocean carriers receive any preferential treatment at the canal, “there are no clear indications that this is occurring,” project44 said in a report Friday. It cited “thousands of shipments” p44 tracked transiting the canal over the last 13 months. “While Chinese carriers remain competitive, there is no clear sign of favoritism exhibited in the overall transit times,” p44 said. “Our analysis suggests that the performance of individual carriers has a stronger correlation with transit times than [a] carrier’s country of origin.” Vessels operated by Cosco Shipping appear to have an advantage in services between the southern Chinese port of Yantian and the US East Coast, according to p44’s cargo tracking. It said Cosco ships made the trip in an average of 43 days, compared with an industry-wide average of 48 days. But on the Shanghai-US East Coast route, CMA CGM showed a seven-day advantage over the industry average 37-day transit, p44 said, attributing this to the carrier’s “streamlined operations and high efficiency.” Mediterranean Shipping Co. also sees better-than-average transit times between Shanghai and US Southeast ports, p44 data shows. In early February, Panama President Jose Raul Mulino accused the US of “lies and falsehoods” related to a supposed deal to allow US naval ships priority access. Mulino has also denied claims of Chinese influence at the port. The Panama Canal Authority (ACP), an independent agency, administers the canal’s operations. While its board of directors are Panamanian, its advisory board includes, among others, William Flanagan, a former US Navy Commander in Chief for the Atlantic Fleet and NATO. Ship capacity is controlled through a reservation process, with tolls based on the type of ship and cargo. Last-minute reservations are also auctioned. Panama’s port ownership Operations of the Panama Canal’s major container terminals at the Atlantic ports of Colon and Cristobal and the Pacific port of Balboa have also been an issue for Trump. But the Chinese are hardly the sole overseas operators at the ports. CK Hutchison Holdings, a Hong Kong-listed conglomerate with holdings in telecom and retail, owns Hutchison Ports, which has operated a 2 million-TEU terminal in Balboa since 1997. It also operates a 1 million-TEU port at Cristobal. A separate unit, Hutchison Port Holdings, is a Singapore-listed public investment trust for the conglomerate’s container terminals in China. A different Singapore-listed entity, PSA International, the former Port of Singapore Authority, operates another 1 million-TEU terminal in Balboa. SSA Marine, a Seattle-based portfolio company of US private equity firm Blackstone, has a concession for the 3-million-TEU Manzanillo terminal at Colon, while Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine also operates a 2 million-TEU terminal in Colon . Michael Kristiansen, a principal at Panama-based advisory CK Americas and a 25-year veteran of Maersk, told the Journal of Commerce that claims of Chinese influence at the Panama Canal are “total BS.” Rather, he said Trump is likely using Panama as a wedge to counter any further Chinese investments in the Americas, referring to the 1 million-TEU Chancay terminal in Peru that Cosco Shipping helped develop. “The Trump administration is sending China a signal that this is the US’ backyard, especially after the inauguration of Chancay,” Kristiansen said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

Panama Canal transit data belies Trump’s claims of China’s control: project44

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The provincial government is looking to reignite the long-delayed Contrecoeur project, saying Montreal needs more capacity and new trade partners. </div>

The provincial government is looking to reignite the long-delayed Contrecoeur project, saying Montreal needs more capacity and new trade partners.

<div class="phx-topic">Quebec’s government is putting C$130 million (US$92 million) into a proposed container gateway north of the Port of Montreal, saying the port has reached capacity and that tensions with the US have created the need for additional trade lanes outside of North America. The provincial government said this week it provided the funds to the Montreal Port Authority (MPA) for the Contrecoeur project, a proposed 1.15 million-TEU terminal that would be developed about 43 miles up the St. Lawrence River from Montreal. The project has been marked by on and off starts since <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/quebec-awards-43-million-to-planned-montreal-terminal-5250985">Quebec first provided C$55 million in funding in 2021</a>, following a C$300 million investment from Canada’s infrastructure bank in 2019. In the two years following that initial investment, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/montreal-port-gets-federal-funds-for-mega-terminal-after-operators-balk-at-risk-5222977">the MPA sought a concessionaire</a> to fund part of the terminal’s C$1.5 billion estimated cost in return for operating the terminal, hoping to break ground last year. But the MPA had trouble finding a partner willing to shoulder the additional cost of the project, a greenfield site that also requires extensive dredging and shoring up portions of the St. Lawrence River. The MPA said it was looking to restructure the project by taking on more of the risk and finding a new concessionaire. In 2023, it also secured another C$150 million from the Canadian government’s infrastructure fund. In Monday’s funding announcement, the office of Quebec’s Premier François Legault said that Contrecoeur was necessary because the Montreal port “has reached the maximum capacity of its facilities.” The statement said that the terminal should be commissioned in 2029. Legault also noted that the current political climate between Canada and the US was another reason for building Contrecoeur. President Donald Trump has threatened Canada with tariffs, along with musing about its annexation by the United States. “In the current context, it is more essential than ever to strengthen Quebec’s competitiveness and diversify our markets to reduce our dependence on the United States,” Legault said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Quebec’s government is putting C$130 million (US$92 million) into a proposed container gateway north of the Port of Montreal, saying the port has reached capacity and that tensions with the US have created the need for additional trade lanes outside of North America. The provincial government said this week it provided the funds to the Montreal Port Authority (MPA) for the Contrecoeur project, a proposed 1.15 million-TEU terminal that would be developed about 43 miles up the St. Lawrence River from Montreal. The project has been marked by on and off starts since Quebec first provided C$55 million in funding in 2021 , following a C$300 million investment from Canada’s infrastructure bank in 2019. In the two years following that initial investment, the MPA sought a concessionaire to fund part of the terminal’s C$1.5 billion estimated cost in return for operating the terminal, hoping to break ground last year. But the MPA had trouble finding a partner willing to shoulder the additional cost of the project, a greenfield site that also requires extensive dredging and shoring up portions of the St. Lawrence River. The MPA said it was looking to restructure the project by taking on more of the risk and finding a new concessionaire. In 2023, it also secured another C$150 million from the Canadian government’s infrastructure fund. In Monday’s funding announcement, the office of Quebec’s Premier François Legault said that Contrecoeur was necessary because the Montreal port “has reached the maximum capacity of its facilities.” The statement said that the terminal should be commissioned in 2029. Legault also noted that the current political climate between Canada and the US was another reason for building Contrecoeur. President Donald Trump has threatened Canada with tariffs, along with musing about its annexation by the United States. “In the current context, it is more essential than ever to strengthen Quebec’s competitiveness and diversify our markets to reduce our dependence on the United States,” Legault said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Quebec provides new funding for proposed Montreal terminal, citing US trade tensions

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on the first year of any annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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 GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

SUBSCRIBE TODAY: Choose a plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

UPGRADE AND SAVE: Use code GUW795 at checkout and save $700 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

Upgrade Subscription

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE: Use code STSW20 at checkout to save 20% on first year of any subscription plan!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk25

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">The US Trade Representative said the proposed fees are designed to counter China’s influence over the global shipbuilding and maritime industry.</div>

The US Trade Representative said the proposed fees are designed to counter China’s influence over the global shipbuilding and maritime industry.

<div class="phx-topic">The Trump administration is looking to raise billions in tariffs on the back of the container shipping industry through a proposed port usage fee on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling on the US. Exporters, too, face the risk of higher costs if new mandates requiring the use of US fleets go into effect. The proposals, if implemented, threaten to raise costs for US shippers and upend the economics of the global containerized supply chain. The proposed port usage fee takes direct aim at China’s ocean carriers but would also penalize the global maritime industry that relies on China’s shipbuilders. The US Trade Representative (USTR) said Friday its year-long investigation of China’s shipbuilding and maritime logistics industry concluded China “has employed increasingly aggressive and specific targets in pursuing dominance.” The investigation — <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/chinas-predatory-maritime-policies-threaten-global-trade-white-house-5923952">initiated during the Biden Administration</a> after it received a petition from a group of US manufacturing unions — laid out how China’s state support brought the country’s share of the global shipbuilding industry from less than 5% in 1999 to over 50% in 2023. Chinese companies now control about one-fifth of the world’s shipping fleet, the USTR said. “China has largely achieved its dominance goals, severely disadvantaging US companies, workers, and the US economy generally,” the USTR said. The USTR, which will soon be led by Trump appointee Jamieson Greer, laid out a series of penalties and remedies as part of its investigation. Those are now open for public comment through March 24. Among the USTR’s proposals are a $1 million fee for each US port call of a Chinese-operated ship, or a $1,000-per-net-ton fee applied on the ship’s carrying capacity. For all other ocean carriers, the USTR proposes a sliding port entrance fee of up to $1.5 million per Chinese-built vessel based on the percent of the carrier’s fleet built in China. Likewise, an additional fee of $1 million per vessel could also be assessed based on the percent of the carrier’s newbuild order book at Chinese shipyards. The USTR said ocean carriers could receive a $1 million refund for each call by a US-built vessel at a port. US-based ocean carriers will also get cargo preference under the USTR’s proposal that an increasing share of exports move on US fleets. The USTR would require an increasing percentage of US exports, starting at 1%, moved on US-flagged vessels in the first two years of its proposed actions. Starting in the third year, the proposal also requires that an increasing percentage of exports move on US-built and US-flagged ships. Once public comments are received, the USTR will also hold a public hearing on its proposed actions, which could go into effect up to six months later. While affected parties can ask for waivers on the new fees and the proposed actions could be postponed through a trade deal, they would hit every container shipping company outside of the US. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The Trump administration is looking to raise billions in tariffs on the back of the container shipping industry through a proposed port usage fee on Chinese-built and -operated ships calling on the US. Exporters, too, face the risk of higher costs if new mandates requiring the use of US fleets go into effect. The proposals, if implemented, threaten to raise costs for US shippers and upend the economics of the global containerized supply chain. The proposed port usage fee takes direct aim at China’s ocean carriers but would also penalize the global maritime industry that relies on China’s shipbuilders. The US Trade Representative (USTR) said Friday its year-long investigation of China’s shipbuilding and maritime logistics industry concluded China “has employed increasingly aggressive and specific targets in pursuing dominance.” The investigation — initiated during the Biden Administration after it received a petition from a group of US manufacturing unions — laid out how China’s state support brought the country’s share of the global shipbuilding industry from less than 5% in 1999 to over 50% in 2023. Chinese companies now control about one-fifth of the world’s shipping fleet, the USTR said. “China has largely achieved its dominance goals, severely disadvantaging US companies, workers, and the US economy generally,” the USTR said. The USTR, which will soon be led by Trump appointee Jamieson Greer, laid out a series of penalties and remedies as part of its investigation. Those are now open for public comment through March 24. Among the USTR’s proposals are a $1 million fee for each US port call of a Chinese-operated ship, or a $1,000-per-net-ton fee applied on the ship’s carrying capacity. For all other ocean carriers, the USTR proposes a sliding port entrance fee of up to $1.5 million per Chinese-built vessel based on the percent of the carrier’s fleet built in China. Likewise, an additional fee of $1 million per vessel could also be assessed based on the percent of the carrier’s newbuild order book at Chinese shipyards. The USTR said ocean carriers could receive a $1 million refund for each call by a US-built vessel at a port. US-based ocean carriers will also get cargo preference under the USTR’s proposal that an increasing share of exports move on US fleets. The USTR would require an increasing percentage of US exports, starting at 1%, moved on US-flagged vessels in the first two years of its proposed actions. Starting in the third year, the proposal also requires that an increasing percentage of exports move on US-built and US-flagged ships. Once public comments are received, the USTR will also hold a public hearing on its proposed actions, which could go into effect up to six months later. While affected parties can ask for waivers on the new fees and the proposed actions could be postponed through a trade deal, they would hit every container shipping company outside of the US. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

US port fees could hit Chinese ships under Trump trade proposal

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The cost of the US Trade Representative’s proposal for levying fees on Chinese ships and ocean carriers would fall to US shippers, who would also face fewer service options, the analyst says.</div>

The cost of the US Trade Representative’s proposal for levying fees on Chinese ships and ocean carriers would fall to US shippers, who would also face fewer service options, the analyst says.

<div class="phx-topic">The container shipping industry is weighing the potential cost of the Trump administration’s proposal to tax Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports, with many seeing US shippers ultimately bearing those costs. Similar to other tariffs, the port tax sets up winners and losers in the industry, depending on fleet composition and how they operate. On the conclusion of an investigation initiated during the Biden administration into anti-competitive practices of China’s shipbuilding industry, the US Trade Representative (USTR) last week <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">released its suggested remedies</a>, including fees up to $1 million for Chinese-operated ships calling US ports. Operators outside of China could face sliding scale fees of up to $1.5 million per port call for Chinese-built ships, depending on factors such as the carrier’s current fleet and orders at Chinese shipyards. Other proposed remedies call for fees based on a ship’s net tonnage and an export cargo preference requirement for US-based fleets. While ships of Chinese origin comprise about one-third of the global container fleet, consultancy Drewry Shipping estimates that 80% of the ships calling the US could get hit with the fee due to their Chinese origin, operation or the carrier’s order book. China’s Cosco Shipping and its Hong Kong-based OOCL subsidiary would take the most direct hit from the proposed new fees. The two carriers had a combined 1,379 US port calls over the previous 12 months according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, translating into over $1 billion in port taxes under the Trump plan. Drewry said South Korea’s HMM and Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine might avoid the worst of the tariffs due to the large number of South Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese ships in their fleets. Niche US-based carriers such as Matson would also be exempt but risk retaliation from China due to their port calls there, Drewry added. Other carrier fleets also include a mix of ships from South Korean and Japanese shipyards that would be exempt from the tax. They could likewise redeploy Chinese-built ships to non-US trade lanes. However, it will be tough to entirely avoid the fees due to the high number of new ships that will come from China over the next two years. Sea-web data shows that Chinese shipyards account for 5.6 million TEUs of new container ship orders — two-thirds of all newbuilds. With most carriers having some Chinese-built ships in their fleet and on order, Drewry estimates that ocean carriers generally could be on the hook for $2 million to $3 million in fees for each US voyage based on multiple port calls. Shippers could face added costs of $450 to $1,000 per standard container, Drewry added. <h3>‘Draconian’ fee </h3>If enacted, the World Shipping Council (WSC) said the “draconian” fee proposal would cause ocean carriers to make major adjustments to their service networks, including reducing US port calls while increasing costs for shippers. “USTR’s proposed draconian $1 million-plus per US port visit fees, if carried forward, would cause broad economic harm across all sectors of the US supply chain,” the WSC said in a statement. “The fees would result in fewer US port calls, higher prices for US consumers, and severe impacts for exporters.” While the new fees aim to incentivize the US shipbuilding industry, the National Retail Federation (NRF) questioned whether that goal can be reached. The NRF, in a response last year to the Biden administration’s investigation of China, said it would require a $5 million fee per port call to offset the estimated $50 billion cost for adding US shipyard capacity. “This is much too high for the shipper to absorb,” the NRF said in its comments. “The fee will be passed on to the owners of the freight: American importers, and ultimately, their customers: American farmers, manufacturers and families.” The Trump proposal’s cargo preference requirement for US fleets to carry US exports would also do little for trade, the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC) said in a briefing to its members. The higher freight costs of US-crewed ships would make it too expensive to ship low-margin farm goods across the globe, according to the group. “Nothing we produce in agriculture or forest products here in the US cannot be sourced from a foreign country,” AgTC said. “If we cannot deliver to our overseas customer affordably and dependably, they will find alternative sources, and US ag loses that market.” <h3>More tariffs coming </h3>The proposed port fees would compound the immediate cost increases that shippers face under the Trump administration. President Donald Trump on Thursday posted a social media message saying he intends to add another 10% levy on Chinese imports, citing what he says is that country’s role in the illegal drug trade. Those tariffs, which go into effect March 4, would be on top of an initial 10% tariff on Chinese goods that Trump announced at the start of February. Trump’s post also said he will impose the threatened 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico next week due to what he called “unacceptable levels” of illegal drugs coming from both countries into the US. The tariffs were delayed when first announced in February after Canada and Mexico agreed to enhance their border security. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com ">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The container shipping industry is weighing the potential cost of the Trump administration’s proposal to tax Chinese-built and -operated ships calling US ports, with many seeing US shippers ultimately bearing those costs. Similar to other tariffs, the port tax sets up winners and losers in the industry, depending on fleet composition and how they operate. On the conclusion of an investigation initiated during the Biden administration into anti-competitive practices of China’s shipbuilding industry, the US Trade Representative (USTR) last week released its suggested remedies , including fees up to $1 million for Chinese-operated ships calling US ports. Operators outside of China could face sliding scale fees of up to $1.5 million per port call for Chinese-built ships, depending on factors such as the carrier’s current fleet and orders at Chinese shipyards. Other proposed remedies call for fees based on a ship’s net tonnage and an export cargo preference requirement for US-based fleets. While ships of Chinese origin comprise about one-third of the global container fleet, consultancy Drewry Shipping estimates that 80% of the ships calling the US could get hit with the fee due to their Chinese origin, operation or the carrier’s order book. China’s Cosco Shipping and its Hong Kong-based OOCL subsidiary would take the most direct hit from the proposed new fees. The two carriers had a combined 1,379 US port calls over the previous 12 months according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, translating into over $1 billion in port taxes under the Trump plan. Drewry said South Korea’s HMM and Taiwan’s Evergreen Marine might avoid the worst of the tariffs due to the large number of South Korean, Japanese and Taiwanese ships in their fleets. Niche US-based carriers such as Matson would also be exempt but risk retaliation from China due to their port calls there, Drewry added. Other carrier fleets also include a mix of ships from South Korean and Japanese shipyards that would be exempt from the tax. They could likewise redeploy Chinese-built ships to non-US trade lanes. However, it will be tough to entirely avoid the fees due to the high number of new ships that will come from China over the next two years. Sea-web data shows that Chinese shipyards account for 5.6 million TEUs of new container ship orders — two-thirds of all newbuilds. With most carriers having some Chinese-built ships in their fleet and on order, Drewry estimates that ocean carriers generally could be on the hook for $2 million to $3 million in fees for each US voyage based on multiple port calls. Shippers could face added costs of $450 to $1,000 per standard container, Drewry added. ‘Draconian’ fee If enacted, the World Shipping Council (WSC) said the “draconian” fee proposal would cause ocean carriers to make major adjustments to their service networks, including reducing US port calls while increasing costs for shippers. “USTR’s proposed draconian $1 million-plus per US port visit fees, if carried forward, would cause broad economic harm across all sectors of the US supply chain,” the WSC said in a statement. “The fees would result in fewer US port calls, higher prices for US consumers, and severe impacts for exporters.” While the new fees aim to incentivize the US shipbuilding industry, the National Retail Federation (NRF) questioned whether that goal can be reached. The NRF, in a response last year to the Biden administration’s investigation of China, said it would require a $5 million fee per port call to offset the estimated $50 billion cost for adding US shipyard capacity. “This is much too high for the shipper to absorb,” the NRF said in its comments. “The fee will be passed on to the owners of the freight: American importers, and ultimately, their customers: American farmers, manufacturers and families.” The Trump proposal’s cargo preference requirement for US fleets to carry US exports would also do little for trade, the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC) said in a briefing to its members. The higher freight costs of US-crewed ships would make it too expensive to ship low-margin farm goods across the globe, according to the group. “Nothing we produce in agriculture or forest products here in the US cannot be sourced from a foreign country,” AgTC said. “If we cannot deliver to our overseas customer affordably and dependably, they will find alternative sources, and US ag loses that market.” More tariffs coming The proposed port fees would compound the immediate cost increases that shippers face under the Trump administration. President Donald Trump on Thursday posted a social media message saying he intends to add another 10% levy on Chinese imports, citing what he says is that country’s role in the illegal drug trade. Those tariffs, which go into effect March 4, would be on top of an initial 10% tariff on Chinese goods that Trump announced at the start of February. Trump’s post also said he will impose the threatened 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico next week due to what he called “unacceptable levels” of illegal drugs coming from both countries into the US. The tariffs were delayed when first announced in February after Canada and Mexico agreed to enhance their border security. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

US port tax would scramble ocean services, raise shipper costs: Drewry

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier has replaced the huge vessels with smaller ships in a move to cut capacity and reduce pressure on rates that have plummeted since the start of the year, according to the analyst.</div>

The carrier has replaced the huge vessels with smaller ships in a move to cut capacity and reduce pressure on rates that have plummeted since the start of the year, according to the analyst.

<div class="phx-topic">Mediterranean Shipping Co. is planning to switch all of its 19,200-TEU to 24,300-TEU “megamax” ships from the Asia-North Europe trade lane to the Asia-Mediterranean and Asia-West Africa corridors, according to Alphaliner. While the world’s largest container line adjusts its global network to support life as a standalone carrier, Alphaliner said the shift could also be related to the sharp decline in rates on Asia-North Europe routes. “MSC has not formally announced the fleet reshuffle yet, but the changes might come as reaction to changing ocean freight spot rates,” the analyst noted in its weekly newsletter. “Reducing capacity on this trade lane could be considered an attempt to reduce pressure on rates.” Spot rates on Asia-North Europe, which are fast closing in on long-term contract rates, are down 44% at $2,805 per FEU since the start of the year, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. The average rate of long-term contracts signed in the last three months is $2,790/FEU. MSC’s forward schedules show the Geneva-based carrier’s 24,000-TEU ships will be partially re-deployed to the Africa Express service on the Asia-West Africa loop, where the largest vessels currently working are 16,600 TEUs, also operated by MSC. Most of MSC’s fleet of 23,500-TEU ships will be trading on three of the carrier’s four standalone Asia-Mediterranean loops. Spot rates on the Shanghai-West Africa route — shorter than continuing to North Europe — are near $4,000/FEU, while average Asia-Mediterranean spot rates are currently at $4,100/FEU. The option to move megamax ships to West African services has been made possible by huge investment from major terminal operators and carriers into port infrastructure at Tema in Ghana and Lome in Togo, which have never received vessels of that size on a regular basis. MSC’s forward schedules show the carrier will deploy a fleet of 17 “neo-Panamax” ships with an average capacity of 14,615 TEUs on its Asia-North Europe Lion service, Alphaliner noted. The carrier’s three other Asia-North Europe loops will also be worked by similar-sized tonnage, with the average vessel on the Albatross service at 14,660 TEUs, the Swan service at 15,350 TEUs and the Britannia service at 14,740 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Mediterranean Shipping Co. is planning to switch all of its 19,200-TEU to 24,300-TEU “megamax” ships from the Asia-North Europe trade lane to the Asia-Mediterranean and Asia-West Africa corridors, according to Alphaliner. While the world’s largest container line adjusts its global network to support life as a standalone carrier, Alphaliner said the shift could also be related to the sharp decline in rates on Asia-North Europe routes. “MSC has not formally announced the fleet reshuffle yet, but the changes might come as reaction to changing ocean freight spot rates,” the analyst noted in its weekly newsletter. “Reducing capacity on this trade lane could be considered an attempt to reduce pressure on rates.” Spot rates on Asia-North Europe, which are fast closing in on long-term contract rates, are down 44% at $2,805 per FEU since the start of the year, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. The average rate of long-term contracts signed in the last three months is $2,790/FEU. MSC’s forward schedules show the Geneva-based carrier’s 24,000-TEU ships will be partially re-deployed to the Africa Express service on the Asia-West Africa loop, where the largest vessels currently working are 16,600 TEUs, also operated by MSC. Most of MSC’s fleet of 23,500-TEU ships will be trading on three of the carrier’s four standalone Asia-Mediterranean loops. Spot rates on the Shanghai-West Africa route — shorter than continuing to North Europe — are near $4,000/FEU, while average Asia-Mediterranean spot rates are currently at $4,100/FEU. The option to move megamax ships to West African services has been made possible by huge investment from major terminal operators and carriers into port infrastructure at Tema in Ghana and Lome in Togo, which have never received vessels of that size on a regular basis. MSC’s forward schedules show the carrier will deploy a fleet of 17 “neo-Panamax” ships with an average capacity of 14,615 TEUs on its Asia-North Europe Lion service, Alphaliner noted. The carrier’s three other Asia-North Europe loops will also be worked by similar-sized tonnage, with the average vessel on the Albatross service at 14,660 TEUs, the Swan service at 15,350 TEUs and the Britannia service at 14,740 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe

MSC pulls megaships from Asia-North Europe network: Alphaliner

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Supply chain security technology provider Overhaul forecasts another big year for cargo theft in 2025, although not as big as a 49% year-over-year increase in 2024. </div>

Supply chain security technology provider Overhaul forecasts another big year for cargo theft in 2025, although not as big as a 49% year-over-year increase in 2024.

<div class="phx-topic">Cargo crime in the US is not only rising, but it is shifting to new markets as criminals follow the freight, according to a report from supply chain security firm Overhaul. Overhaul expects US cargo theft to continue to grow at double-digit rates, although not as fast as in 2024. Thieves are striking deeper into supply chains, moving further inland. “In 2025, cargo theft events in the United States are expected to show a major increase from 2,217 to 2,705,” a 22% increase, Overhaul said in its annual report, released Friday. That compares with a 49% year-over-year increase in cargo theft by volume in 2024. Overhaul based its forecast on data from law enforcement and other sources. California remains the top state for cargo theft, accounting for 32% of total US theft events last year, but that was a 9-percentage-point drop from 2023, Overhaul said. Pennsylvania’s share of total reported US cargo theft jumped from 1% in 2023 to 8% last year, Overhaul said. Texas, Tennessee and Georgia also saw more freight crime, with their share of total US cargo theft rising by 7 percentage points, 3 percentage points and 1 percentage point to 19%, 14% and 6%, respectively. “Cargo theft is spreading to other states but remains a latent risk for logistics activities in metropolitan areas that are commonly affected by these thefts,” Overhaul said. The Overhaul data suggests thieves are getting better at tracking freight as it flows through supply chains and targeting shipments where they are most vulnerable. <h3>Fraud rising fast </h3>Measuring cargo crime activity is notoriously difficult, with many events underreported. However, other sources have noted increases comparable with Overhaul’s data. Verisk CargoNet, a business unit of Verisk, reported a 27% increase in cargo theft in the US and Canada in 2024, with thefts in California and Texas rising 33% and 39%, respectively. Reported thefts in Dallas County, Texas, spiked by 78% year over year in 2024. Data reveals “an evolving and increasingly sophisticated threat landscape,” CargoNet said. Fraudulent or “deceptive” pickups remain a part of that landscape but only accounted for about 8% of total cargo theft in 2024, according to Overhaul. Still, the number of deceptive pickups reported increased 57% last year, Overhaul said. Pilferage — theft of a partial load — increased 38% while full truckload thefts rose 4%. Train robbery is on the rise, too; Overhaul expects rail yard thefts to increase 26% in 2025. The security firm also noted an increase in targeted rail thefts. BNSF Railway was targeted in several incidents last year, resulting in the theft of about $2 million in Nike sneakers, according to a Los Angeles Times <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-23/freight-train-heists-targeting-nike-merchandise-are-probed-as-related">report Sunday</a>. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Cargo crime in the US is not only rising, but it is shifting to new markets as criminals follow the freight, according to a report from supply chain security firm Overhaul. Overhaul expects US cargo theft to continue to grow at double-digit rates, although not as fast as in 2024. Thieves are striking deeper into supply chains, moving further inland. “In 2025, cargo theft events in the United States are expected to show a major increase from 2,217 to 2,705,” a 22% increase, Overhaul said in its annual report, released Friday. That compares with a 49% year-over-year increase in cargo theft by volume in 2024. Overhaul based its forecast on data from law enforcement and other sources. California remains the top state for cargo theft, accounting for 32% of total US theft events last year, but that was a 9-percentage-point drop from 2023, Overhaul said. Pennsylvania’s share of total reported US cargo theft jumped from 1% in 2023 to 8% last year, Overhaul said. Texas, Tennessee and Georgia also saw more freight crime, with their share of total US cargo theft rising by 7 percentage points, 3 percentage points and 1 percentage point to 19%, 14% and 6%, respectively. “Cargo theft is spreading to other states but remains a latent risk for logistics activities in metropolitan areas that are commonly affected by these thefts,” Overhaul said. The Overhaul data suggests thieves are getting better at tracking freight as it flows through supply chains and targeting shipments where they are most vulnerable. Fraud rising fast Measuring cargo crime activity is notoriously difficult, with many events underreported. However, other sources have noted increases comparable with Overhaul’s data. Verisk CargoNet, a business unit of Verisk, reported a 27% increase in cargo theft in the US and Canada in 2024, with thefts in California and Texas rising 33% and 39%, respectively. Reported thefts in Dallas County, Texas, spiked by 78% year over year in 2024. Data reveals “an evolving and increasingly sophisticated threat landscape,” CargoNet said. Fraudulent or “deceptive” pickups remain a part of that landscape but only accounted for about 8% of total cargo theft in 2024, according to Overhaul. Still, the number of deceptive pickups reported increased 57% last year, Overhaul said. Pilferage — theft of a partial load — increased 38% while full truckload thefts rose 4%. Train robbery is on the rise, too; Overhaul expects rail yard thefts to increase 26% in 2025. The security firm also noted an increase in targeted rail thefts. BNSF Railway was targeted in several incidents last year, resulting in the theft of about $2 million in Nike sneakers, according to a Los Angeles Times report Sunday . Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

US cargo crime forecast to rise 22% as thefts spread inland

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The French liner joined the ranks of its profitable peers, announcing Friday that its net profit rose 2% to $5.7 billion last year on an 18% rise in revenue to $55.5 billion.</div>

The French liner joined the ranks of its profitable peers, announcing Friday that its net profit rose 2% to $5.7 billion last year on an 18% rise in revenue to $55.5 billion.

<div class="phx-topic">New ship deliveries, the possible resumption of Suez Canal transits and the impact of US tariffs on trade are the three key issues that will define the container shipping sector this year, CMA CGM said Friday. “Deliveries of new vessels, combined with any developments in the Red Sea situation, will be decisive factors in shaping the market,” the French carrier said while reporting its fourth-quarter and full-year 2024 results. CMA CGM expects global container volumes to grow 3% this year, the same as global GDP. “The prospect of higher tariffs announced in the United States could have an impact on trade and lead to a reorganization of global supply chains in the medium term,” the carrier said. CMA CGM said its net profit rose 2% to $5.7 billion last year on an 18% rise in revenue to $55.5 billion. Its shipping division saw a 16% increase in revenue to $36.5 billion, while container volumes rose almost 8% to 23.6 million TEUs. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) in 2024 climbed 52% year over year to $11 billion. The contribution of shipping to total revenue was unchanged at about 66% despite the growth in the carrier’s logistics business following the full integration of Bolloré Logistics. Revenue at the logistics business climbed 21% to $18.4 billion. CMA CGM’s other businesses, including terminals and air cargo, saw revenue surge 43% to almost $2.9 billion. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

New ship deliveries, the possible resumption of Suez Canal transits and the impact of US tariffs on trade are the three key issues that will define the container shipping sector this year, CMA CGM said Friday. “Deliveries of new vessels, combined with any developments in the Red Sea situation, will be decisive factors in shaping the market,” the French carrier said while reporting its fourth-quarter and full-year 2024 results. CMA CGM expects global container volumes to grow 3% this year, the same as global GDP. “The prospect of higher tariffs announced in the United States could have an impact on trade and lead to a reorganization of global supply chains in the medium term,” the carrier said. CMA CGM said its net profit rose 2% to $5.7 billion last year on an 18% rise in revenue to $55.5 billion. Its shipping division saw a 16% increase in revenue to $36.5 billion, while container volumes rose almost 8% to 23.6 million TEUs. Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) in 2024 climbed 52% year over year to $11 billion. The contribution of shipping to total revenue was unchanged at about 66% despite the growth in the carrier’s logistics business following the full integration of Bolloré Logistics. Revenue at the logistics business climbed 21% to $18.4 billion. CMA CGM’s other businesses, including terminals and air cargo, saw revenue surge 43% to almost $2.9 billion. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

TPM25: Container market downturn creating ‘new era of volatility’

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

‘Hungry’ carriers slicing surcharges in eastbound trans-Pacific as bookings slow

Panama Canal transit data belies Trump’s claims of China’s control: project44

Quebec provides new funding for proposed Montreal terminal, citing US trade tensions

Recent Commentary

How the LTL market could evolve as the FedEx Freight spinoff plays out

In appreciation of McLean’s essential, although not timeless, innovations

Top 5 Most Read Stories