<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The flagship of Santos Brasil is Tecon Santos, the largest container terminal in South America with a capacity of 2.5 million TEUs that will soon be expanded to 3 million TEUs.</div>

The flagship of Santos Brasil is Tecon Santos, the largest container terminal in South America with a capacity of 2.5 million TEUs that will soon be expanded to 3 million TEUs.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">CMA CGM is on course to take full ownership of Santos Brasil, which operates South America’s largest container terminal, in a deal worth about $2.3 billion, the company confirmed Friday. The shipping, air cargo and ports conglomerate said it became the majority shareholder in Santos Brasil with a 51% stake after its $1 billion purchase of a 47.9% interest from fund management company Opportunity was approved by Brazil’s regulatory authorities. CMA CGM already held a 3.1% share in the terminal operator that it bought in September, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cma-cgm-moves-to-take-over-top-brazilian-terminal-operator-5732689">the same time it made its initial bid for the stake held by Opportunity</a>. The acquisition will give CMA CGM direct control of its container operations in a port where rivals Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. operate Brasil Terminal Portuário (BTP) and DP World operates its Santos terminal. CMA CGM said it will now make a mandatory tender offer through its port company, CMA Terminals Atlantic, to acquire the remaining 49% in Santos Brasil held by other shareholders for the same price and conditions paid to Opportunity. Shareholder acceptance of CMA CGM’s offer will depend on the outcome of a special shareholders meeting on April 29 called to approve an independent financial appraiser that will set a minimum price for the outstanding shares. The minimum price could be less, more or equal to the price per share paid by CMA Terminals for the shares held by Opportunity. CMA CGM plans to delist Santos Brasil once full ownership is confirmed. <h3>Largest terminal in South America</h3>The flagship of Santos Brasil is Tecon Santos, the largest container terminal in South America with a capacity of 2.5 million TEUs that will soon be expanded to 3 million TEUs, CMA CGM has said previously. Its three berths can handle ships of up to 14,000 TEUs. The terminal handles about 16% of Brazil’s total container volumes. Santos Brasil also controls vehicle, breakbulk and liquids terminals as well as port-related logistics operations. Mauricio Fisch, director of Brazil freight forwarder Ocean Express, part of the HTFN Global Logistics Network, said CMA CGM’s deal is so recent that forwarders have not seen any real impact or heard what the carrier plans to do. “But purchasing the biggest container terminal in Santos, I am sure they will try to concentrate their services there and use the capacity of the terminal as a hub for their transshipments in Brazil,” Fisch told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The deal comes as ocean carriers move to take greater control of terminal assets, most notably MSC subsidiary Terminal Investment Limited’s (TiL’s) involvement with BlackRock <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hutchison-to-delay-panama-ports-deal-signing-amid-growing-beijing-pressure-5971728">in the closely watched proposed acquisition of CK Hutchison assets</a>.Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

CMA CGM is on course to take full ownership of Santos Brasil, which operates South America’s largest container terminal, in a deal worth about $2.3 billion, the company confirmed Friday. The shipping, air cargo and ports conglomerate said it became the majority shareholder in Santos Brasil with a 51% stake after its $1 billion purchase of a 47.9% interest from fund management company Opportunity was approved by Brazil’s regulatory authorities. CMA CGM already held a 3.1% share in the terminal operator that it bought in September, the same time it made its initial bid for the stake held by Opportunity . The acquisition will give CMA CGM direct control of its container operations in a port where rivals Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping Co. operate Brasil Terminal Portuário (BTP) and DP World operates its Santos terminal. CMA CGM said it will now make a mandatory tender offer through its port company, CMA Terminals Atlantic, to acquire the remaining 49% in Santos Brasil held by other shareholders for the same price and conditions paid to Opportunity. Shareholder acceptance of CMA CGM’s offer will depend on the outcome of a special shareholders meeting on April 29 called to approve an independent financial appraiser that will set a minimum price for the outstanding shares. The minimum price could be less, more or equal to the price per share paid by CMA Terminals for the shares held by Opportunity. CMA CGM plans to delist Santos Brasil once full ownership is confirmed. Largest terminal in South America The flagship of Santos Brasil is Tecon Santos, the largest container terminal in South America with a capacity of 2.5 million TEUs that will soon be expanded to 3 million TEUs, CMA CGM has said previously. Its three berths can handle ships of up to 14,000 TEUs. The terminal handles about 16% of Brazil’s total container volumes. Santos Brasil also controls vehicle, breakbulk and liquids terminals as well as port-related logistics operations. Mauricio Fisch, director of Brazil freight forwarder Ocean Express, part of the HTFN Global Logistics Network, said CMA CGM’s deal is so recent that forwarders have not seen any real impact or heard what the carrier plans to do. “But purchasing the biggest container terminal in Santos, I am sure they will try to concentrate their services there and use the capacity of the terminal as a hub for their transshipments in Brazil,” Fisch told the Journal of Commerce Friday. The deal comes as ocean carriers move to take greater control of terminal assets, most notably MSC subsidiary Terminal Investment Limited’s (TiL’s) involvement with BlackRock in the closely watched proposed acquisition of CK Hutchison assets . Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container Shipping News

Port News

Container lines

Marine terminals

International ports

Maritime

CMA CGM becomes majority shareholder in Santos Brasil terminal operator

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Shippers and service providers say much of the project cargo industry dodged a bullet with the latest US fee proposal targeting Chinese-built ships.</div>

Shippers and service providers say much of the project cargo industry dodged a bullet with the latest US fee proposal targeting Chinese-built ships.

<div class="phx-topic">New Orleans — Large energy projects are being paused due to tariff concerns, but that could lead to a robust second half of 2025 for the project cargo sector if shippers feel more certainty about trade policy in the months ahead. “With existing projects, we’re not seeing much impact. They’re being executed,” Jake Swanson, regional vice president of DHL Industrial Projects, told the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference Thursday. “But new projects, especially high-value ones, we’ve seen a slowdown, or a pause. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5990612_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“There’s just general uneasiness and we’ve noticed that in terms of [requests for quotes] we’re seeing,” he added. Swanson said activity around smaller and medium-sized projects that are less capital-intensive is still strong and that there is optimism for the second half of 2025 when much of the activity currently on pause may unlock. “Hopefully it’s not just wishful thinking,” he said. “Maybe some of the bigger projects will fall into second half of the year and solutions will be found to some of these questions around sourcing due to the tariffs.” Shippers are also optimistic about projects carrying on despite headwinds from trade policy actions between the US and China and the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) planned fees on Chinese-built ships. A significant portion of the fleet serving project shippers would be exempt from the heaviest levies on Chinese ships, according to the latest proposal the USTR has floated. “We dodged a bullet with regard to the Chinese vessel port tax,” Bob Drew, director of chartering and operations for Tata International Metals (Americas), told the conference. “Most of what we use fits within two of the exception categories.” <h3>‘Not easy to change sourcing quickly’ </h3>Felix Schoeller, director at project carrier AAL Shipping, said service providers are accounting for “quite a rapid shift” in the types of cargo their customers are moving. “The pipeline was quite positive for oil and gas and renewables — all three had a positive outlook,” he said. “Now, with tariffs, it’s not easy to change sourcing quickly away from China, and renewables are a bit out of favor.” Still, Schoeller said he thinks 2026 and 2027 will see robust demand and that the priority will be for shippers to work collaboratively and proactively with their forwarders and carriers. Drew said the “the biggest concern we have is what’s going to happen to the economy,” but that it’s not helpful to get too distracted by the frequent trade policy changes. “Ignoring some of the policies that are unlikely to materialize is something we have to do,” he said. “If we took the position that the worst-case would happen, we’d have left opportunities on the table. There’s no evidence that the world is coming to an end.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

New Orleans — Large energy projects are being paused due to tariff concerns, but that could lead to a robust second half of 2025 for the project cargo sector if shippers feel more certainty about trade policy in the months ahead. “With existing projects, we’re not seeing much impact. They’re being executed,” Jake Swanson, regional vice president of DHL Industrial Projects, told the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference Thursday. “But new projects, especially high-value ones, we’ve seen a slowdown, or a pause. “There’s just general uneasiness and we’ve noticed that in terms of [requests for quotes] we’re seeing,” he added. Swanson said activity around smaller and medium-sized projects that are less capital-intensive is still strong and that there is optimism for the second half of 2025 when much of the activity currently on pause may unlock. “Hopefully it’s not just wishful thinking,” he said. “Maybe some of the bigger projects will fall into second half of the year and solutions will be found to some of these questions around sourcing due to the tariffs.” Shippers are also optimistic about projects carrying on despite headwinds from trade policy actions between the US and China and the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) planned fees on Chinese-built ships. A significant portion of the fleet serving project shippers would be exempt from the heaviest levies on Chinese ships, according to the latest proposal the USTR has floated. “We dodged a bullet with regard to the Chinese vessel port tax,” Bob Drew, director of chartering and operations for Tata International Metals (Americas), told the conference. “Most of what we use fits within two of the exception categories.” ‘Not easy to change sourcing quickly’ Felix Schoeller, director at project carrier AAL Shipping, said service providers are accounting for “quite a rapid shift” in the types of cargo their customers are moving. “The pipeline was quite positive for oil and gas and renewables — all three had a positive outlook,” he said. “Now, with tariffs, it’s not easy to change sourcing quickly away from China, and renewables are a bit out of favor.” Still, Schoeller said he thinks 2026 and 2027 will see robust demand and that the priority will be for shippers to work collaboratively and proactively with their forwarders and carriers. Drew said the “the biggest concern we have is what’s going to happen to the economy,” but that it’s not helpful to get too distracted by the frequent trade policy changes. “Ignoring some of the policies that are unlikely to materialize is something we have to do,” he said. “If we took the position that the worst-case would happen, we’d have left opportunities on the table. There’s no evidence that the world is coming to an end.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Breakbulk News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Project cargo

Breakbulk25: Trade policy headwinds haven’t dampened all optimism

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The unknowns surrounding US tariffs and proposed fees on Chinese tonnage are forcing shipowners to take a wait-and-see approach to ordering new vessels.</div>

The unknowns surrounding US tariffs and proposed fees on Chinese tonnage are forcing shipowners to take a wait-and-see approach to ordering new vessels.

<div class="phx-topic">New Orleans — Early engagement with shippers, flexibility with charter contracts and day-to-day agility will be key to the fleet strategies of breakbulk and project cargo carriers as they grapple with capacity limitations and the threat of tariffs, a panel of multipurpose vessel/heavy-lift (MPV/HL) operators told attendees at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference. “The best advice to our clients would be that tomorrow is not today,” Anders Hyrup, president of JSI Alliance, said Thursday. JSI operates super-heavy carriers Jumbo, SAL and Intermarine. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5990612_0.1.jpg"></img></div>MPV/HL operators are struggling to replace capacity despite a surge of new ship orders in the last quarter of 2024. And now the sector is staring down hefty fees <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">the US Trade Representative (USTR) plans to impose on Chinese-built vessels that call the US</a>. Only eight MPV/HL ships are not Chinese-owned. The unknowns surrounding fees are forcing owners to take a wait-and-see approach to ordering new vessels. Pieter Flohil, managing director with Dutch MPV/HL operator Spliethoff, said the company has been looking to expand its fleet but has put those plans on pause amid concerns over US tariff policy and proposed ship fees. “We’re in a very capital-intensive business, and we as a group are very conservative in terms of our risk,” Flohil said. “And at the moment, we really want to see which way the world is going.” Tim Kopfensteiner, president of German MPV/HL operator BBC Chartering USA, said the fee exemptions — which include the company’s vessels — have given him cautious optimism. “To do a complete 180 on our strategy for something that could be there for 30 days, four years, eight years — it’s a very, very difficult decision to make,” he said. <h3>Contract changes </h3>In terms of chartering, some vessel owners are taking steps to get ahead of US ship fees by including clauses in contracts that address the charges. Operators on Thursday’s panel said there has been some pushback, but otherwise most shippers have been receptive to the clauses in anticipation of fees. “I think there was some understanding from the shippers’ side because there’s not much you can do about it,” said Melanie Drehkopf, chief commercial officer for Hamburg-based MPV/HL operator dship Carriers. Hyrup said even though the contract clauses were triggered by USTR, they could become standard practice given ongoing trade uncertainties. “I think this is a clause we have to get used to in this industry, that this will be permanent,” he said. “Because we have these changes over and over and over.” With competition from other carrier sectors likely to heat up — and an influx of containers likely to spill over into the MPV/HL sector over the summer — Hyrup said early engagement with shippers will be important. “It would be nice if everybody just decided to swim in their own lane,” he said. “But that’s not happening.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

New Orleans — Early engagement with shippers, flexibility with charter contracts and day-to-day agility will be key to the fleet strategies of breakbulk and project cargo carriers as they grapple with capacity limitations and the threat of tariffs, a panel of multipurpose vessel/heavy-lift (MPV/HL) operators told attendees at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference. “The best advice to our clients would be that tomorrow is not today,” Anders Hyrup, president of JSI Alliance, said Thursday. JSI operates super-heavy carriers Jumbo, SAL and Intermarine. MPV/HL operators are struggling to replace capacity despite a surge of new ship orders in the last quarter of 2024. And now the sector is staring down hefty fees the US Trade Representative (USTR) plans to impose on Chinese-built vessels that call the US . Only eight MPV/HL ships are not Chinese-owned. The unknowns surrounding fees are forcing owners to take a wait-and-see approach to ordering new vessels. Pieter Flohil, managing director with Dutch MPV/HL operator Spliethoff, said the company has been looking to expand its fleet but has put those plans on pause amid concerns over US tariff policy and proposed ship fees. “We’re in a very capital-intensive business, and we as a group are very conservative in terms of our risk,” Flohil said. “And at the moment, we really want to see which way the world is going.” Tim Kopfensteiner, president of German MPV/HL operator BBC Chartering USA, said the fee exemptions — which include the company’s vessels — have given him cautious optimism. “To do a complete 180 on our strategy for something that could be there for 30 days, four years, eight years — it’s a very, very difficult decision to make,” he said. Contract changes In terms of chartering, some vessel owners are taking steps to get ahead of US ship fees by including clauses in contracts that address the charges. Operators on Thursday’s panel said there has been some pushback, but otherwise most shippers have been receptive to the clauses in anticipation of fees. “I think there was some understanding from the shippers’ side because there’s not much you can do about it,” said Melanie Drehkopf, chief commercial officer for Hamburg-based MPV/HL operator dship Carriers. Hyrup said even though the contract clauses were triggered by USTR, they could become standard practice given ongoing trade uncertainties. “I think this is a clause we have to get used to in this industry, that this will be permanent,” he said. “Because we have these changes over and over and over.” With competition from other carrier sectors likely to heat up — and an influx of containers likely to spill over into the MPV/HL sector over the summer — Hyrup said early engagement with shippers will be important. “It would be nice if everybody just decided to swim in their own lane,” he said. “But that’s not happening.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Heavy-haul transport

Breakbulk25: Capacity-limited MPV operators reconsider fleet expansion

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Speakers at the conference in New Orleans agreed that recent volatility has yet to significantly slow projects or investments in the project cargo sector.</div>

Speakers at the conference in New Orleans agreed that recent volatility has yet to significantly slow projects or investments in the project cargo sector.

<div class="phx-topic">New Orleans — Adapting to the unexpected while resisting knee-jerk reactions will be key to navigating a series of market uncertainties that include constant changes to US tariff policy, geopolitical tensions and labor strikes, a panel of project cargo logistics managers told attendees at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference. “Don’t get comfortable. It’s always changing,” John MacDonough, construction logistics manager for the Woodfibre LNG project in British Columbia, told the conference Thursday. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5990612_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Logistics managers on the panel agreed that volatility hasn’t significantly slowed projects or investments. “There’s only a slight halt in that that we’re being asked to look at the risks a little more closely, because it’s changing almost daily,” said Geanean Ordonez, project logistics manager/procurement for EPC Technip Energies. John Hark, a director at Bertling Logistics and adjunct professor at Texas A&amp;M at Galveston, said the long-term return on investment on large projects will help ensure that investments will continue amid uncertainty. But managing costs and supply chain risks will remain important for logistics managers. “We can’t just say, ‘well, let’s not worry about this $10 million because the project is worth this much money over the next 20 years,’” he said. Itoro Ibanga, project logistics specialist and category manager for industrial supplier Air Liquide, said logistics managers should trust their own expertise and maintain compliance as they respond to tariffs and other unknowns. “Plan for the worst. Anything could happen,” he said. “Be ready and try to see how much you can mitigate that risk.” Ordonez said logistics managers will need to expect surprises as they work with their customers. “Just keep swimming,” she said. “It’s what we do.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at <a href="mailto:autumn@autumngiusti.com">autumn@autumngiusti.com</a>. </div>

New Orleans — Adapting to the unexpected while resisting knee-jerk reactions will be key to navigating a series of market uncertainties that include constant changes to US tariff policy, geopolitical tensions and labor strikes, a panel of project cargo logistics managers told attendees at the Journal of Commerce’s Breakbulk and Project Cargo Conference. “Don’t get comfortable. It’s always changing,” John MacDonough, construction logistics manager for the Woodfibre LNG project in British Columbia, told the conference Thursday. Logistics managers on the panel agreed that volatility hasn’t significantly slowed projects or investments. “There’s only a slight halt in that that we’re being asked to look at the risks a little more closely, because it’s changing almost daily,” said Geanean Ordonez, project logistics manager/procurement for EPC Technip Energies. John Hark, a director at Bertling Logistics and adjunct professor at Texas A&M at Galveston, said the long-term return on investment on large projects will help ensure that investments will continue amid uncertainty. But managing costs and supply chain risks will remain important for logistics managers. “We can’t just say, ‘well, let’s not worry about this $10 million because the project is worth this much money over the next 20 years,’” he said. Itoro Ibanga, project logistics specialist and category manager for industrial supplier Air Liquide, said logistics managers should trust their own expertise and maintain compliance as they respond to tariffs and other unknowns. “Plan for the worst. Anything could happen,” he said. “Be ready and try to see how much you can mitigate that risk.” Ordonez said logistics managers will need to expect surprises as they work with their customers. “Just keep swimming,” she said. “It’s what we do.” Contact Autumn Cafiero Giusti at autumn@autumngiusti.com .

Breakbulk25: Logistics managers push adaptability amid market turmoil

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The closure of freighter slots at the airport beginning in August is expected to last several months because of an estimated $1 billion investment plan launched by port operator Adani Airport Holding.</div>

The closure of freighter slots at the airport beginning in August is expected to last several months because of an estimated $1 billion investment plan launched by port operator Adani Airport Holding.

<div class="phx-topic">Freighter slots at the Mumbai International Airport (MIAL) will be suspended beginning mid-August for extensive infrastructure upgrades, posing a threat to India’s booming air freight supply chains amid the recent cargo expansion fueled by trade diversification in Asia. The impending closure is expected to last several months because of an estimated $1 billion investment plan launched by port operator Adani Airport Holding (AAHL), a subsidiary of the private behemoth Adani Group. “MIAL needs to carry out multiple air-side works, including building new taxiways, to enhance its capacity and bring efficiency in operations,” the authority told cargo stakeholders. A significant portion of Indian air cargo volumes moves via Mumbai, making it one of the busiest hubs for freighter networks. Turkish Airlines, Emirates, Challenge Group and Qatar Airways lead the pack there, with about 60 to 75 freighter services a month. The infrastructure work at MIAL seemingly ties in with AAHL’s long-term strategy to consolidate all Mumbai air freight operations at a new airport in Navi Mumbai on the outskirts of Mumbai City, which is expected to go live in June. AAHL already has eight Indian airports under its management, accounting for 25% of the country’s passenger footfalls and 35% of air cargo volumes. Industry sources believe airlines and trade stakeholders could encounter serious challenges, including infrastructure and regulatory issues, relocating to the new airport due to the complex nature of the air cargo sector, especially for perishables verticals. “MIAL stands as a vital nerve center for India’s international trade, particularly in the pharmaceutical and perishable goods sectors,” Satish Lakkaraju, board member at the Air Cargo Forum India (ACFI), told the Journal of Commerce. “Any operational bottlenecks could lead to cargo backlogs, longer lead times and a spike in logistics costs.” Global air cargo carriers have markedly cemented connections out of Mumbai to support India’s strong e-commerce demand, another segment that could take a toll if supply chains are disrupted. India’s e-commerce market swelled 24% year over year in 2024 to $148 billion by value, according to industry data. “In the short term, businesses in Mumbai can anticipate multiple hurdles due to the disruption,” said a freight forwarder who didn’t want to be identified. “Looking ahead, they might have to adapt by diversifying supply chains and/or exploring alternative routes.” Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencyvmathew@gmail.com">bencyvmathew@gmail.com</a>. </div>

Freighter slots at the Mumbai International Airport (MIAL) will be suspended beginning mid-August for extensive infrastructure upgrades, posing a threat to India’s booming air freight supply chains amid the recent cargo expansion fueled by trade diversification in Asia. The impending closure is expected to last several months because of an estimated $1 billion investment plan launched by port operator Adani Airport Holding (AAHL), a subsidiary of the private behemoth Adani Group. “MIAL needs to carry out multiple air-side works, including building new taxiways, to enhance its capacity and bring efficiency in operations,” the authority told cargo stakeholders. A significant portion of Indian air cargo volumes moves via Mumbai, making it one of the busiest hubs for freighter networks. Turkish Airlines, Emirates, Challenge Group and Qatar Airways lead the pack there, with about 60 to 75 freighter services a month. The infrastructure work at MIAL seemingly ties in with AAHL’s long-term strategy to consolidate all Mumbai air freight operations at a new airport in Navi Mumbai on the outskirts of Mumbai City, which is expected to go live in June. AAHL already has eight Indian airports under its management, accounting for 25% of the country’s passenger footfalls and 35% of air cargo volumes. Industry sources believe airlines and trade stakeholders could encounter serious challenges, including infrastructure and regulatory issues, relocating to the new airport due to the complex nature of the air cargo sector, especially for perishables verticals. “MIAL stands as a vital nerve center for India’s international trade, particularly in the pharmaceutical and perishable goods sectors,” Satish Lakkaraju, board member at the Air Cargo Forum India (ACFI), told the Journal of Commerce. “Any operational bottlenecks could lead to cargo backlogs, longer lead times and a spike in logistics costs.” Global air cargo carriers have markedly cemented connections out of Mumbai to support India’s strong e-commerce demand, another segment that could take a toll if supply chains are disrupted. India’s e-commerce market swelled 24% year over year in 2024 to $148 billion by value, according to industry data. “In the short term, businesses in Mumbai can anticipate multiple hurdles due to the disruption,” said a freight forwarder who didn’t want to be identified. “Looking ahead, they might have to adapt by diversifying supply chains and/or exploring alternative routes.” Contact Bency Mathew at bencyvmathew@gmail.com .

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Air Cargo

Indian air cargo braces for disruptions amid looming upgrade project at Mumbai

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The latest deals will increase the total number of methanol-enabled ships Wan Hai has on order to 32, worth a total of almost $5 billion.</div>

The latest deals will increase the total number of methanol-enabled ships Wan Hai has on order to 32, worth a total of almost $5 billion.

<div class="phx-topic">Wan Hai Lines has ordered four additional 16,000-TEU methanol-ready, dual-fuel container ships from two South Korean shipyards at a cost of up to $816 million, the Taiwan-headquartered carrier said. The latest deals will increase the total number of methanol-enabled ships Wan Hai has on order to 32, worth a total of almost $5 billion. Wan Hai, ranked 11th in the world by Alphaliner in terms of capacity, said two of the vessels will be built by HD Hyundai Samho, while the other pair will be constructed by Samsung Heavy Industries. Each of the four ships will cost between $187 million and $204 million, the carrier said Thursday. All of Wan Hai’s ships on order are scheduled for delivery in 2026 and 2027 and will increase the carrier’s owned fleet to almost 150 ships totaling approximately 950,000 TEUs in capacity. The orders also mark further expansion of Wan Hai’s long-haul network to North and South America, India and the Middle East, while increasing the number of owned vessels and reducing the need for chartered tonnage. The latest contracts were confirmed by Wan Hai after it announced that its operating revenue surged 34% year over year in the first quarter to $1.1 billion amid high rates and solid freight volumes. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Wan Hai Lines has ordered four additional 16,000-TEU methanol-ready, dual-fuel container ships from two South Korean shipyards at a cost of up to $816 million, the Taiwan-headquartered carrier said. The latest deals will increase the total number of methanol-enabled ships Wan Hai has on order to 32, worth a total of almost $5 billion. Wan Hai, ranked 11th in the world by Alphaliner in terms of capacity, said two of the vessels will be built by HD Hyundai Samho, while the other pair will be constructed by Samsung Heavy Industries. Each of the four ships will cost between $187 million and $204 million, the carrier said Thursday. All of Wan Hai’s ships on order are scheduled for delivery in 2026 and 2027 and will increase the carrier’s owned fleet to almost 150 ships totaling approximately 950,000 TEUs in capacity. The orders also mark further expansion of Wan Hai’s long-haul network to North and South America, India and the Middle East, while increasing the number of owned vessels and reducing the need for chartered tonnage. The latest contracts were confirmed by Wan Hai after it announced that its operating revenue surged 34% year over year in the first quarter to $1.1 billion amid high rates and solid freight volumes. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Trans-Pacific

Wan Hai orders four 16,000-TEU ships amid expansion of long-haul network

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">There is widespread recognition that the industry has been caught in the jaws of a historically unprecedented freight recession — rate deflation accompanied by cost inflation — and if carriers are to return to historical levels of profitability, there is a need for rate and volume increases to deliver top-line growth. </div>

There is widespread recognition that the industry has been caught in the jaws of a historically unprecedented freight recession — rate deflation accompanied by cost inflation — and if carriers are to return to historical levels of profitability, there is a need for rate and volume increases to deliver top-line growth.

<div class="phx-topic">The surface freight transportation industry is now pinning its hope on economic recovery — for the third straight year — on an expected recovery in the second half of the year. The industry consensus calls for incremental improvement in truckload rates driven by gradual improvement in sector fundamentals throughout the year. Nevertheless, the most recent results of many public truckload stocks have been sobering. Although some carriers observed some “green shoots” during peak season, post-election gains have been given back — and then some. Multiples are below historic norms, and fleet sizes continue to contract — despite several years of shrinkage. There is widespread recognition that the industry has been caught in the jaws of a historically unprecedented freight recession caused by rate deflation accompanied by cost inflation. If carriers are to return to historical levels of profitability, there is a need for rate and volume increases to deliver top-line growth. To analyze this dichotomy, I utilized “An Analysis of the Operational Cost of Trucking: 2024 Update.” Prepared by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), this annual report casts a wide net in respondent type, size and operating model; provides historical context for almost the past 20 years and is remarkably transparent when compared with other self-anointed experts. The first chart explains this difference by looking at two distinct metrics: driver cost per hour and fuel cost per mile. Fuel costs have deviated wildly over this period, whereas driver cost has been steadily increasing. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="b372d175-2a73-40b7-83a0-f350f63093d1"></dynamic-object></div>Nevertheless, in an environment where trucking costs are on an inexorable inflationary arc, how have rates remained so depressed? I believe that the issue is that the trucking market is less “free” since the COVID-19 pandemic. A free market exists when supply and demand (through “voluntary exchange”) determine economic outcomes. Buyers and sellers are free to trade goods and services free of governmental intervention or market dominance by one side: monopoly, oligopoly or monopsony. A free market also requires the freedom of firms to enter that market because there are no barriers of entry. Since deregulation, the truckload market has had this freedom. However, market freedom also permits firms to freely depart from the market without any barriers to exit. This has not necessarily been the case since the pandemic. At the smallest increment of production, an individual with a commercial driver’s license could acquire a tractor and trailer, obtain insurance, register with the government and be in business. If the business did not work out, the individual could hand the keys to the equipment lender and be on with their life. COVID changed these dynamics. Equipment was wildly expensive and lenders required more security than just the underlying asset. New entrants needed to pledge their homes or life savings. When the market turned, there was no exit possible because they were “upside down.” The asset was worth less than they paid for it. These owner-operators are now forced into an untenable situation. Having no exit, their only choice is to keep driving until the market changes. Because survival — not profitability — is the goal, their floor price is what I call “direct cash costs.” In the ATRI model, this is fuel, insurance, permits/licenses and tolls. Costs such as equipment payments, maintenance and repair and tires are deferred until the end. I call them “episodic cash.” Driver wages and benefits are notional. The second chart shows how these costs have tracked the past 10 years. I have also included traditional truckload and intermodal. The former has no episodic cash. Maintenance is maintained, and equipment cost is deferred by parking equipment. Non-asset intermodal is all “direct cash” because all components are purchased. Bimodal intermodal providers are not shown, but they would be between traditional truckload and non-asset intermodal. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7c8a9981-9386-4062-844d-cd07eb8ea529"></dynamic-object></div>The second chart also explains the freight recession. The traditional economies of scale enjoyed by large truckload carriers over owner-operators are meaningless when costs are not “apples to apples.” The same applies to intermodal’s competitive advantage. The intermodal line may be a little high; however, we have not seen a widespread willingness of railroads to cut their rates. This situation is not The Flying Dutchman, a phantom ship doomed to sail forever. Eventually, the equipment will be retired, and “normal” market conditions will return. Until then, this market situation is likely to maintain. Contact Ted Prince at <a href="mailto:ted@tricitiesintermodal.com">ted@tricitiesintermodal.com</a>.</div>

The surface freight transportation industry is now pinning its hope on economic recovery — for the third straight year — on an expected recovery in the second half of the year. The industry consensus calls for incremental improvement in truckload rates driven by gradual improvement in sector fundamentals throughout the year. Nevertheless, the most recent results of many public truckload stocks have been sobering. Although some carriers observed some “green shoots” during peak season, post-election gains have been given back — and then some. Multiples are below historic norms, and fleet sizes continue to contract — despite several years of shrinkage. There is widespread recognition that the industry has been caught in the jaws of a historically unprecedented freight recession caused by rate deflation accompanied by cost inflation. If carriers are to return to historical levels of profitability, there is a need for rate and volume increases to deliver top-line growth. To analyze this dichotomy, I utilized “An Analysis of the Operational Cost of Trucking: 2024 Update.” Prepared by the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), this annual report casts a wide net in respondent type, size and operating model; provides historical context for almost the past 20 years and is remarkably transparent when compared with other self-anointed experts. The first chart explains this difference by looking at two distinct metrics: driver cost per hour and fuel cost per mile. Fuel costs have deviated wildly over this period, whereas driver cost has been steadily increasing. Nevertheless, in an environment where trucking costs are on an inexorable inflationary arc, how have rates remained so depressed? I believe that the issue is that the trucking market is less “free” since the COVID-19 pandemic. A free market exists when supply and demand (through “voluntary exchange”) determine economic outcomes. Buyers and sellers are free to trade goods and services free of governmental intervention or market dominance by one side: monopoly, oligopoly or monopsony. A free market also requires the freedom of firms to enter that market because there are no barriers of entry. Since deregulation, the truckload market has had this freedom. However, market freedom also permits firms to freely depart from the market without any barriers to exit. This has not necessarily been the case since the pandemic. At the smallest increment of production, an individual with a commercial driver’s license could acquire a tractor and trailer, obtain insurance, register with the government and be in business. If the business did not work out, the individual could hand the keys to the equipment lender and be on with their life. COVID changed these dynamics. Equipment was wildly expensive and lenders required more security than just the underlying asset. New entrants needed to pledge their homes or life savings. When the market turned, there was no exit possible because they were “upside down.” The asset was worth less than they paid for it. These owner-operators are now forced into an untenable situation. Having no exit, their only choice is to keep driving until the market changes. Because survival — not profitability — is the goal, their floor price is what I call “direct cash costs.” In the ATRI model, this is fuel, insurance, permits/licenses and tolls. Costs such as equipment payments, maintenance and repair and tires are deferred until the end. I call them “episodic cash.” Driver wages and benefits are notional. The second chart shows how these costs have tracked the past 10 years. I have also included traditional truckload and intermodal. The former has no episodic cash. Maintenance is maintained, and equipment cost is deferred by parking equipment. Non-asset intermodal is all “direct cash” because all components are purchased. Bimodal intermodal providers are not shown, but they would be between traditional truckload and non-asset intermodal. The second chart also explains the freight recession. The traditional economies of scale enjoyed by large truckload carriers over owner-operators are meaningless when costs are not “apples to apples.” The same applies to intermodal’s competitive advantage. The intermodal line may be a little high; however, we have not seen a widespread willingness of railroads to cut their rates. This situation is not The Flying Dutchman, a phantom ship doomed to sail forever. Eventually, the equipment will be retired, and “normal” market conditions will return. Until then, this market situation is likely to maintain. Contact Ted Prince at ted@tricitiesintermodal.com .

Surface

Surface industry faces obstacles on way to hoped-for H2 recovery

<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

Dry Van

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {van_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Flatbed

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY}
 Weekly % change: {flatbed_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

Refrigerated

{name} 
{dateX.formatDate('MMM dd, yyyy')}: ${valueY} 
 Weekly % change: {reefer_rate_previous_week_change.formatNumber('#.##%')}

DAT Freight & Analytics is an independent source of truckload pricing and business intelligence. Using an automated daily process, DAT collects invoices from nearly 1,200 transportation companies totaling more than $137 billion in freight spend annually. It verifies and updates data daily; each market rate reported in RateView Analytics requires a minimum number of submissions, so prices cannot be manipulated; and the algorithms account for outliers. [DAT](https://dat.com)

US dry-van, flatbed and refrigerated truckload spot rates (DAT)

US Truckload spot rates weekly (DAT) Gateway

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Carriers and importers are dealing with confusion over how tariffs in general, and the trade war between Washington and Beijing specifically, will affect commerce on the US’ busiest trade lane over the next 12 months.</div>

Carriers and importers are dealing with confusion over how tariffs in general, and the trade war between Washington and Beijing specifically, will affect commerce on the US’ busiest trade lane over the next 12 months.

<div class="phx-topic">Uncertainty over the Trump administration’s ever-changing tariff policy is claiming another casualty: the traditional timeline for the signing of annual service contracts between ocean carriers and importers in the eastbound trans-Pacific. Sources tell the Journal of Commerce the typical timeline for locking up deals, most of which begin May 1, has been delayed by at least two weeks. The reason? Confusion over how tariffs in general, and the trade war between Washington and Beijing specifically, will affect commerce on the US’ busiest trade lane over the next 12 months. “The tariff tiff is complicating matters,” said Ben Coleman, president of the forwarder Teampower Logistics. While ocean carriers and their largest retail customers are continuing to disagree over pricing levels in the 2025–26 service contract negotiations, the tariff uncertainty is causing hesitation among shippers who need to make a final decision on the volumes they will import as part of the so-called minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) that must be adhered to during the life of the contracts. Adding another two weeks this late in the negotiating cycle before carriers sign contracts with their largest customers is unusual, Kevin Parkerson, a consultant and former logistics manager at national retailers, told the Journal of Commerce. “Typically by April 23 this should all be done,” he said. On pricing matters, the largest retailers are said to be locked in a standoff with carriers over a $100-per-FEU difference in rates for their 2025–26 service contracts. Carriers are refusing to budge from the $1,600-per-FEU floor for West Coast trade and $2,600 per FEU to the East Coast that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pac-gri-offers-resistance-to-retailers-push-for-lower-contract-rates-5977200">they negotiated earlier this month</a>, forwarders and industry consultants say. In the contracts that they have not already signed, some big-box retailers want to pay no more than $1,500 per FEU to the West Coast. “The big guys are on hold,” Parkerson said. “They’re digging in.” Container lines and major US importers generally conclude annual service contract talks by early April, with non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) nailing down their own contracts by late April or early May. Carriers normally extend existing contracts beyond the typical April 30 end for smaller importers and NVOs who are in the final stages of contract talks. The revised timeline will extend those negotiations past the May 1 start date for many of the new contracts. While many of the second- and third-tier importers and NVOs have either concluded negotiations with their core carriers or are close to finalizing them at rates ranging from $1,600 to $1,900 per FEU or higher to the West Coast, they are waiting for the largest retailers to set the floor for rates before they sign the agreements, sources say. A second industry consultant who formerly served as a logistics manager at national retailers said $100 per FEU may not sound like a game-breaker. However, “If you’re shipping a couple of hundred thousand containers, that’s a lot of money,” he noted. <h3>Blank sailings prop up spot rates </h3>Meanwhile, NVOs say carriers are emboldened by the current level of spot and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates from Asia to the US, which remain higher than the existing 2024–25 service contract rates <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/asia-us-blank-sailing-forecast-for-may-increasing-amid-cancellations-5988996">despite a 37% drop in bookings from China</a> since March 31. The spot rate to the West Coast on Wednesday was $2,067 per FEU, with rates to the East Coast at $3,067 per FEU, according to Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister company within S&amp;P Global. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e56fd23a-cfad-4929-899f-b91371ff9fc0"></dynamic-object></div>With US imports from China plummeting because of the tariffs, carriers announced the blanking of dozens of sailings through May, which forwarders say will keep spot rates elevated through the remainder of the service contracting season. Meanwhile, if negotiations with the largest retailers drag on past May 1, carriers are expected to extend existing contracts with their core customers until the new deals are signed. “But if this continues on for a while, eventually you’re going to get a bubble,” the second consultant said, adding that there will be a rush by importers and NVOs to sign their contracts. That could force rates higher in May. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Uncertainty over the Trump administration’s ever-changing tariff policy is claiming another casualty: the traditional timeline for the signing of annual service contracts between ocean carriers and importers in the eastbound trans-Pacific. Sources tell the Journal of Commerce the typical timeline for locking up deals, most of which begin May 1, has been delayed by at least two weeks. The reason? Confusion over how tariffs in general, and the trade war between Washington and Beijing specifically, will affect commerce on the US’ busiest trade lane over the next 12 months. “The tariff tiff is complicating matters,” said Ben Coleman, president of the forwarder Teampower Logistics. While ocean carriers and their largest retail customers are continuing to disagree over pricing levels in the 2025–26 service contract negotiations, the tariff uncertainty is causing hesitation among shippers who need to make a final decision on the volumes they will import as part of the so-called minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) that must be adhered to during the life of the contracts. Adding another two weeks this late in the negotiating cycle before carriers sign contracts with their largest customers is unusual, Kevin Parkerson, a consultant and former logistics manager at national retailers, told the Journal of Commerce. “Typically by April 23 this should all be done,” he said. On pricing matters, the largest retailers are said to be locked in a standoff with carriers over a $100-per-FEU difference in rates for their 2025–26 service contracts. Carriers are refusing to budge from the $1,600-per-FEU floor for West Coast trade and $2,600 per FEU to the East Coast that they negotiated earlier this month , forwarders and industry consultants say. In the contracts that they have not already signed, some big-box retailers want to pay no more than $1,500 per FEU to the West Coast. “The big guys are on hold,” Parkerson said. “They’re digging in.” Container lines and major US importers generally conclude annual service contract talks by early April, with non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) nailing down their own contracts by late April or early May. Carriers normally extend existing contracts beyond the typical April 30 end for smaller importers and NVOs who are in the final stages of contract talks. The revised timeline will extend those negotiations past the May 1 start date for many of the new contracts. While many of the second- and third-tier importers and NVOs have either concluded negotiations with their core carriers or are close to finalizing them at rates ranging from $1,600 to $1,900 per FEU or higher to the West Coast, they are waiting for the largest retailers to set the floor for rates before they sign the agreements, sources say. A second industry consultant who formerly served as a logistics manager at national retailers said $100 per FEU may not sound like a game-breaker. However, “If you’re shipping a couple of hundred thousand containers, that’s a lot of money,” he noted. Blank sailings prop up spot rates Meanwhile, NVOs say carriers are emboldened by the current level of spot and freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates from Asia to the US, which remain higher than the existing 2024–25 service contract rates despite a 37% drop in bookings from China since March 31. The spot rate to the West Coast on Wednesday was $2,067 per FEU, with rates to the East Coast at $3,067 per FEU, according to Platts, a Journal of Commerce sister company within S&P Global. With US imports from China plummeting because of the tariffs, carriers announced the blanking of dozens of sailings through May, which forwarders say will keep spot rates elevated through the remainder of the service contracting season. Meanwhile, if negotiations with the largest retailers drag on past May 1, carriers are expected to extend existing contracts with their core customers until the new deals are signed. “But if this continues on for a while, eventually you’re going to get a bubble,” the second consultant said, adding that there will be a rush by importers and NVOs to sign their contracts. That could force rates higher in May. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Tariff uncertainty disrupting timeline for trans-Pacific service contract talks

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The analyst downgraded its container handling outlook following similar moves on global and US economic growth by the IMF and WTO this week.</div>

The analyst downgraded its container handling outlook following similar moves on global and US economic growth by the IMF and WTO this week.

<div class="phx-topic">Significant downgrades in both global and US economic growth this year and next will translate into dramatic declines in container volumes, especially on the trans-Pacific trade that is facing the combined impact of US tariffs on Beijing and fees that will be levied on Chinese-built tonnage calling the US. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) earlier this week downgraded its US GDP outlook for 2025 to 1.8% from the 2.7% forecast made in January, with the world economic outlook for the year cut to 2.8% from 3.3%. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is predicting global merchandise trade will contract by 0.2% this year under current conditions. Those data points have prompted maritime analyst Drewry to unveil a “much more pessimistic” outlook for container demand than its forecast just a month ago. “We’re now expecting global container handling to decrease by 1% in 2025, approximately the same level of contraction that the market saw in 2020 with COVID, and it would be only the third year with any annual decline since Drewry’s records started back in 1979,” Simon Heaney, Drewry’s senior manager of container research, told a container shipping outlook webinar Thursday. The 1% decline in global container handling is a downward revision from the 2.3% growth the analyst expected last month. Drewry is also expecting a substantial decline in eastbound Asia-North America container throughput that it now predicts will drop by 7.3% this year compared with 2.1% growth expected in March. While China will also be hit hard by the US actions, it will bounce back quicker than the North American markets, according to the analyst. Drewry’s revised outlook for China is a decline in container volume of 4.8% this year, but its ability to find new markets to offset the loss of US trade will see growth in container volume of 1.6% in 2026. Heaney said the revised forecast was made with the caveat that policy decisions or executive orders on trade made by the Trump administration had no “quality of permanence.” “In the absence of any sort of coherent master plan, we’re left trying to decide the end-game strategy for ourselves, wondering whether there are any conditions at all, whether it’s a looming economic recession or negative public opinion under which this US administration might hesitate and reverse course,” he said. “That question remains unanswered as of today, meaning that any predictions we make for the container shipping market, or any market for that matter, have an extremely short shelf life,” Heaney added. “I’d say we’re in coin flip territory.” <h3>Deployment changes and dislocations </h3>The “reciprocal” US tariffs of 145% on China that went into effect April 9 and the 10% across-the-board tariffs on all US trading partners, as well as the US ship fees on Chinese carriers and China-built vessels, will have a pronounced impact on inbound and outbound US trade, according to container shipping analyst John McCown. “My view is that it is almost certain there will be a double-digit percentage reduction in annual volume for all of 2025 compared to 2024,” McCown wrote in his monthly McCown Report released this week. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e56fd23a-cfad-4929-899f-b91371ff9fc0"></dynamic-object></div>McCown, the founder of private equity firm Blue Alpha Capital, said although the increased costs from tariffs and the ship fee plan would find their way to US consumers, those catalysts would also influence container shipping rates and pricing. “While reduced demand generally puts downward pressure on pricing, we have seen in the past that [vessel] deployment changes and dislocations can result in upwards pressure,” he said. “In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the container shipping industry will aggressively sideline capacity.” McCown pointed to the 81 trans-Pacific sailings blanked in April that were far above the 51 sailings blanked during the height of the pandemic. “This concern regarding reduced demand was confirmed in a recent report showing staggering reductions in the upcoming week of Asia to West Coast loads of 28% and Asia to East Coast loads of 42%,” he noted. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the White House is considering slashing the tariffs on China, in some cases by more than half, to de-escalate the trade war with Beijing. But whether shippers would quickly resume bookings is unclear as West Coast ports still expect volumes to drop sharply in the coming weeks. And China on Thursday labeled as “fake news” any suggestions by the Trump administration that the two sides were engaged in talks meant to end the trade conflict. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Significant downgrades in both global and US economic growth this year and next will translate into dramatic declines in container volumes, especially on the trans-Pacific trade that is facing the combined impact of US tariffs on Beijing and fees that will be levied on Chinese-built tonnage calling the US. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) earlier this week downgraded its US GDP outlook for 2025 to 1.8% from the 2.7% forecast made in January, with the world economic outlook for the year cut to 2.8% from 3.3%. The World Trade Organization (WTO) is predicting global merchandise trade will contract by 0.2% this year under current conditions. Those data points have prompted maritime analyst Drewry to unveil a “much more pessimistic” outlook for container demand than its forecast just a month ago. “We’re now expecting global container handling to decrease by 1% in 2025, approximately the same level of contraction that the market saw in 2020 with COVID, and it would be only the third year with any annual decline since Drewry’s records started back in 1979,” Simon Heaney, Drewry’s senior manager of container research, told a container shipping outlook webinar Thursday. The 1% decline in global container handling is a downward revision from the 2.3% growth the analyst expected last month. Drewry is also expecting a substantial decline in eastbound Asia-North America container throughput that it now predicts will drop by 7.3% this year compared with 2.1% growth expected in March. While China will also be hit hard by the US actions, it will bounce back quicker than the North American markets, according to the analyst. Drewry’s revised outlook for China is a decline in container volume of 4.8% this year, but its ability to find new markets to offset the loss of US trade will see growth in container volume of 1.6% in 2026. Heaney said the revised forecast was made with the caveat that policy decisions or executive orders on trade made by the Trump administration had no “quality of permanence.” “In the absence of any sort of coherent master plan, we’re left trying to decide the end-game strategy for ourselves, wondering whether there are any conditions at all, whether it’s a looming economic recession or negative public opinion under which this US administration might hesitate and reverse course,” he said. “That question remains unanswered as of today, meaning that any predictions we make for the container shipping market, or any market for that matter, have an extremely short shelf life,” Heaney added. “I’d say we’re in coin flip territory.” Deployment changes and dislocations The “reciprocal” US tariffs of 145% on China that went into effect April 9 and the 10% across-the-board tariffs on all US trading partners, as well as the US ship fees on Chinese carriers and China-built vessels, will have a pronounced impact on inbound and outbound US trade, according to container shipping analyst John McCown. “My view is that it is almost certain there will be a double-digit percentage reduction in annual volume for all of 2025 compared to 2024,” McCown wrote in his monthly McCown Report released this week. McCown, the founder of private equity firm Blue Alpha Capital, said although the increased costs from tariffs and the ship fee plan would find their way to US consumers, those catalysts would also influence container shipping rates and pricing. “While reduced demand generally puts downward pressure on pricing, we have seen in the past that [vessel] deployment changes and dislocations can result in upwards pressure,” he said. “In addition, it is reasonable to assume that the container shipping industry will aggressively sideline capacity.” McCown pointed to the 81 trans-Pacific sailings blanked in April that were far above the 51 sailings blanked during the height of the pandemic. “This concern regarding reduced demand was confirmed in a recent report showing staggering reductions in the upcoming week of Asia to West Coast loads of 28% and Asia to East Coast loads of 42%,” he noted. The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that the White House is considering slashing the tariffs on China, in some cases by more than half, to de-escalate the trade war with Beijing. But whether shippers would quickly resume bookings is unclear as West Coast ports still expect volumes to drop sharply in the coming weeks. And China on Thursday labeled as “fake news” any suggestions by the Trump administration that the two sides were engaged in talks meant to end the trade conflict. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Fallout from US-China trade war to depress trans-Pacific volumes: Drewry

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Disruption caused by trade wars will reach deep into global supply chains, depressing an already uncertain outlook for the US freight economy. </div>

Disruption caused by trade wars will reach deep into global supply chains, depressing an already uncertain outlook for the US freight economy.

<div class="phx-topic">The tailwinds that brought a strong increase in US imports and certain exports last year have turned to cold, hard headwinds this year as disruptions caused by the Trump administration’s tariffs take root and multiply. The shock waves from those tariffs are rippling from ports in Asia and Europe through freight docks deep in industrial America. The latest shock came from the US Trade Representative (USTR), which said April 18 it will <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">charge entrance fees for China-based ocean carriers</a> and lines operating Chinese-built ships calling at US ports based on cargo capacity or container volume. Given the chaotic rollout of President Donald Trump’s trade policies, the outlook for the US freight economy in the second half of 2025 isn’t just cloudy — it’s reached a point of uncertainty that is crippling shippers’ ability to plan. US shippers “are waiting for the dust to settle to determine how tariffs might influence and change their short- and long-term business strategies,” Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said during an earnings call April 15. S&amp;P Global, the parent company of the Journal of Commerce, in April pulled down its US GDP growth forecasts for 2025 and 2026 from 1.9% in both years to 1.3% and 1.5%, respectively, thanks in part to expectations that tariffs will result in higher inflation. Although the risk of a recession in the US has diminished, US policy volatility and related economic uncertainties are likely to linger into the year, S&amp;P Global said. On land, the so-called freight recession that began in 2022, sending trucking and intermodal rates tumbling by double-digit percentages, is entering its fourth consecutive year. Shippers will maintain pricing power in the truckload and intermodal rail segments in 2025, but they’re also going to make, ship and sell less. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9fd84e22-d76c-4e34-8c52-c038bd25ad91"></dynamic-object></div>Despite an uptick in truckload spot rates early this year, led by flatbed spot rates, truckload pricing is still bouncing along a bottom it reached in 2023. Less-than-truckload (LTL) pricing has been elevated since the collapse of Yellow in 2023, but volumes remain essentially flat aside from some tariff-driven frontloading. The question isn’t whether trucking volumes will decline in the second quarter or second half of 2025, but by how much. That may trigger a broader loss of truck capacity. <h3>Blanking and canceling </h3>On the seas, the Trump administration’s multi-front trade war has already led to a drop in shipments, compounding the disruption caused by attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, where the US is escalating attacks on Houthis in Yemen. Ocean freight rates have fallen steeply in the first four months of 2025. Average spot pricing from Asia to the US West Coast of $2,050 per FEU in the week of April 18 was down 61% from the beginning of the year and 74.8% from its most recent peak in July 2024, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Asia-US East Coast spot rates have sunk 53.7% since Jan. 1 and 69.4% from last summer to $3,100 per FEU. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="cbb65e03-1d9b-43c6-97ee-0afa0e7dfc1d"></dynamic-object></div>A slew of booking cancellations by US importers is leading ocean carriers to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-blank-sailings-set-to-rise-after-china-bookings-drop-sharply-5984166">blank more voyages</a> in the eastbound trans-Pacific. Some ships are leaving China half-empty. The scale-back in US-bound imports from China is affecting the entire ocean carrier industry. “People are canceling and putting cargo [from] China on pause,” a source at a trans-Pacific container line who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce in April. The broad pause in bookings and orders extends beyond China to other sourcing origins. Amazon, for example, has canceled orders of goods ranging from beach chairs and scooters to air conditioners from Vietnam and Thailand, as well as China, according to a report from Bloomberg. Retailer Five Below paused orders from China in April as those tariffs escalated, CFO Kristy Chipman told analysts during a March 19 call. “The breadth and magnitude of the tariffs are significant given that approximately 60% of our total cost of goods are imported from China, either directly or through our domestic vendors,” Chipman said. Trans-Pacific air cargo traffic, meanwhile, is expected to increase through May 2 as importers rush to beat the end of the exclusion from tariffs for low-value imports. After that final spurt of frontloading, tariffs and the loss of the de minimis exemption for shipments from China and Hong Kong are expected to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/prepare-for-period-of-panic-in-trans-pacific-air-cargo-market-tiaca-5978829">drag on demand</a>. Limited blank sailings have been announced on the trans-Atlantic trade in the coming weeks, with just 7,124 TEUs from North Europe to the US East and Gulf coasts <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/early-signs-of-rising-tariff-driven-demand-emerge-on-the-trans-atlantic-5986678">scheduled to be withdrawn</a> in May, according to maritime data provider eeSea. “It seems as if carriers are pushing up capacity to cater for whatever frontloading may be needed by European exporters,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. <h3>A bubble about to burst </h3>In 2024, containerized US imports jumped 15.3% to 27.7 million TEUs, while exports rose 0.9% to 11.3 million TEUs, according to PIERS, also part of S&amp;P Global. Manufactured goods, machinery and mechanical products and minerals rode atop the wave of imports, spiking 17.6%, 14.8% and 11.4%, respectively. Goods were still pouring into the US in the first three months of 2025, with container imports rising 9.2% year over year, according to PIERS, but retailers say the import wave is collapsing as the race to beat the US tariffs ends. The Global Port Tracker report, produced by the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates, forecasts imports to plunge 20.5% in May, 26.6% in June, 27% in July and 26.7% in August. “At present, we expect to see imports begin to decline by May and that they will drop dramatically during the remainder of the year,” Hackett Associates Founder Ben Hackett said in the April Global Port Tracker report. The NRF and Hackett project inbound container shipments will fall 20% in the second half from the year-ago period, which would result in a full-year decline of 15% or more, approximately equal to last year’s gain. Exporters are feeling the effects of tariffs, too, especially those shipping <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/uncertain-trade-environment-especially-fraught-for-us-ag-shippers-5987561">US agricultural and forestry products</a>. China, the largest US market for those products, levied a 125% tariff on them in retaliation for new US tariffs. Bookings for US exports to China for the week of April 15 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-exporters-see-rise-in-canceled-orders-from-chinese-buyers-amid-trade-war-5986165">were down 5.4%</a> from the prior week at 17,220 TEUs, according to maritime visibility provider Vizion and data and analytics company Dun &amp; Bradstreet. “In [the] short term, I think we’re going to see a lot of agriculture exporting shift [from China] to other countries,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC), said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. A drop in the value of the US dollar — down about 5% against other major world currencies after April’s tariff announcements — could help exporters sell goods overseas, but retaliatory tariffs and backlash among foreign consumers will likely dampen any currency gains. Such backlash has already occurred in Canada, where retailers have withdrawn American-made items from whiskey to diapers from their shelves. <h3>Manufacturing losing momentum </h3>Fewer US imports mean fewer intermodal containers moving inland to Chicago or Dallas and fewer truckload and LTL shipments. But a continued decline in US factory output will have an even greater impact on demand for trucking and rail services. Almost 60% of US truck tonnage is tied to industrial output, according to US Census Bureau data. North America manufacturing output fell at one of the steepest rates seen in the past two years in March, according to S&amp;P Global, with broad-based production losses in the US, Canada and Mexico. The US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) from S&amp;P Global dropped to 50.2 in March from 52.7 in February and 51.2 in January. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e4bcb827-f97b-43d7-a4df-83a0b6ac9b48"></dynamic-object></div>Optimism surrounding the Trump administration and the need to “front run” tariffs buoyed manufacturers in the first two months of the year, but “cracks are now starting to appear,” S&amp;P Global said in its PMI release in April. The longer trade disputes last, the more US manufacturers will have difficulty finding specific components, including some that are critical to production, said Michael Regan, chief relationship officer at logistics company and shipper consultant TranzAct Technologies, citing Chinese-made magnets used in automotive transmissions as an example. “These are ‘dirty magnets’ produced from rare earth metals, and China is limiting their export,” Regan told the Journal of Commerce in mid-April. “A company I know has enough inventory to last only through July.” <h3>Resilient, but worried </h3>US consumer spending has been relatively steadfast so far this year, supported by continued wage increases and low unemployment. US retail sales grew 1.4% month over month in March, the biggest monthly increase since January 2023. Excluding sales of cars and trucks and automotive parts, retail sales only rose 0.5% from February, according to US Census Bureau data. But those results fly in the face of consumer sentiment. The University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment dropped 11% sequentially in April, its fourth consecutive monthly decline. The Conference Board’s monthly index of consumer expectations dropped 9.6 points in March to 65.2, its lowest level in 12 years and far below the threshold of 80 that usually signals a recession ahead. Unlike in 2024, the consumer “is not feeling great,” NRF Chief Economist Jack Kleinhenz said in a statement in mid-April, but the NRF still expects US retail sales to rise this year with or without tariffs. The retailers’ association forecasts retail sales will grow between 2.7% and 3.7% year over year to between $5.42 trillion and $5.48 trillion. What’s more, there’s no expectation the disputes will end in the near future, and even if they do, damage has already been done that will take time to repair. The Trump administration’s goals, whether achievable or not, are part of a long-term strategy that is likely to survive weekly or even daily policy flips. As long as tariff uncertainty and trade wars linger, however, it will be more difficult to find a catalyst that will increase freight demand in the US. That’s pushing hopes for a freight recovery farther into 2026. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. Journal of Commerce editors Ari Ashe, Greg Knowler, Bill Mongelluzzo and Laura Robb contributed to this report, along with Research Analyst Cathy Morrow Roberson. </div>

The tailwinds that brought a strong increase in US imports and certain exports last year have turned to cold, hard headwinds this year as disruptions caused by the Trump administration’s tariffs take root and multiply. The shock waves from those tariffs are rippling from ports in Asia and Europe through freight docks deep in industrial America. The latest shock came from the US Trade Representative (USTR), which said April 18 it will charge entrance fees for China-based ocean carriers and lines operating Chinese-built ships calling at US ports based on cargo capacity or container volume. Given the chaotic rollout of President Donald Trump’s trade policies, the outlook for the US freight economy in the second half of 2025 isn’t just cloudy — it’s reached a point of uncertainty that is crippling shippers’ ability to plan. US shippers “are waiting for the dust to settle to determine how tariffs might influence and change their short- and long-term business strategies,” Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said during an earnings call April 15. S&P Global, the parent company of the Journal of Commerce, in April pulled down its US GDP growth forecasts for 2025 and 2026 from 1.9% in both years to 1.3% and 1.5%, respectively, thanks in part to expectations that tariffs will result in higher inflation. Although the risk of a recession in the US has diminished, US policy volatility and related economic uncertainties are likely to linger into the year, S&P Global said. On land, the so-called freight recession that began in 2022, sending trucking and intermodal rates tumbling by double-digit percentages, is entering its fourth consecutive year. Shippers will maintain pricing power in the truckload and intermodal rail segments in 2025, but they’re also going to make, ship and sell less. Despite an uptick in truckload spot rates early this year, led by flatbed spot rates, truckload pricing is still bouncing along a bottom it reached in 2023. Less-than-truckload (LTL) pricing has been elevated since the collapse of Yellow in 2023, but volumes remain essentially flat aside from some tariff-driven frontloading. The question isn’t whether trucking volumes will decline in the second quarter or second half of 2025, but by how much. That may trigger a broader loss of truck capacity. Blanking and canceling On the seas, the Trump administration’s multi-front trade war has already led to a drop in shipments, compounding the disruption caused by attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, where the US is escalating attacks on Houthis in Yemen. Ocean freight rates have fallen steeply in the first four months of 2025. Average spot pricing from Asia to the US West Coast of $2,050 per FEU in the week of April 18 was down 61% from the beginning of the year and 74.8% from its most recent peak in July 2024, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Asia-US East Coast spot rates have sunk 53.7% since Jan. 1 and 69.4% from last summer to $3,100 per FEU. A slew of booking cancellations by US importers is leading ocean carriers to blank more voyages in the eastbound trans-Pacific. Some ships are leaving China half-empty. The scale-back in US-bound imports from China is affecting the entire ocean carrier industry. “People are canceling and putting cargo [from] China on pause,” a source at a trans-Pacific container line who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce in April. The broad pause in bookings and orders extends beyond China to other sourcing origins. Amazon, for example, has canceled orders of goods ranging from beach chairs and scooters to air conditioners from Vietnam and Thailand, as well as China, according to a report from Bloomberg. Retailer Five Below paused orders from China in April as those tariffs escalated, CFO Kristy Chipman told analysts during a March 19 call. “The breadth and magnitude of the tariffs are significant given that approximately 60% of our total cost of goods are imported from China, either directly or through our domestic vendors,” Chipman said. Trans-Pacific air cargo traffic, meanwhile, is expected to increase through May 2 as importers rush to beat the end of the exclusion from tariffs for low-value imports. After that final spurt of frontloading, tariffs and the loss of the de minimis exemption for shipments from China and Hong Kong are expected to drag on demand . Limited blank sailings have been announced on the trans-Atlantic trade in the coming weeks, with just 7,124 TEUs from North Europe to the US East and Gulf coasts scheduled to be withdrawn in May, according to maritime data provider eeSea. “It seems as if carriers are pushing up capacity to cater for whatever frontloading may be needed by European exporters,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. A bubble about to burst In 2024, containerized US imports jumped 15.3% to 27.7 million TEUs, while exports rose 0.9% to 11.3 million TEUs, according to PIERS, also part of S&P Global. Manufactured goods, machinery and mechanical products and minerals rode atop the wave of imports, spiking 17.6%, 14.8% and 11.4%, respectively. Goods were still pouring into the US in the first three months of 2025, with container imports rising 9.2% year over year, according to PIERS, but retailers say the import wave is collapsing as the race to beat the US tariffs ends. The Global Port Tracker report, produced by the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates, forecasts imports to plunge 20.5% in May, 26.6% in June, 27% in July and 26.7% in August. “At present, we expect to see imports begin to decline by May and that they will drop dramatically during the remainder of the year,” Hackett Associates Founder Ben Hackett said in the April Global Port Tracker report. The NRF and Hackett project inbound container shipments will fall 20% in the second half from the year-ago period, which would result in a full-year decline of 15% or more, approximately equal to last year’s gain. Exporters are feeling the effects of tariffs, too, especially those shipping US agricultural and forestry products . China, the largest US market for those products, levied a 125% tariff on them in retaliation for new US tariffs. Bookings for US exports to China for the week of April 15 were down 5.4% from the prior week at 17,220 TEUs, according to maritime visibility provider Vizion and data and analytics company Dun & Bradstreet. “In [the] short term, I think we’re going to see a lot of agriculture exporting shift [from China] to other countries,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC), said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. A drop in the value of the US dollar — down about 5% against other major world currencies after April’s tariff announcements — could help exporters sell goods overseas, but retaliatory tariffs and backlash among foreign consumers will likely dampen any currency gains. Such backlash has already occurred in Canada, where retailers have withdrawn American-made items from whiskey to diapers from their shelves. Manufacturing losing momentum Fewer US imports mean fewer intermodal containers moving inland to Chicago or Dallas and fewer truckload and LTL shipments. But a continued decline in US factory output will have an even greater impact on demand for trucking and rail services. Almost 60% of US truck tonnage is tied to industrial output, according to US Census Bureau data. North America manufacturing output fell at one of the steepest rates seen in the past two years in March, according to S&P Global, with broad-based production losses in the US, Canada and Mexico. The US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) from S&P Global dropped to 50.2 in March from 52.7 in February and 51.2 in January. Optimism surrounding the Trump administration and the need to “front run” tariffs buoyed manufacturers in the first two months of the year, but “cracks are now starting to appear,” S&P Global said in its PMI release in April. The longer trade disputes last, the more US manufacturers will have difficulty finding specific components, including some that are critical to production, said Michael Regan, chief relationship officer at logistics company and shipper consultant TranzAct Technologies, citing Chinese-made magnets used in automotive transmissions as an example. “These are ‘dirty magnets’ produced from rare earth metals, and China is limiting their export,” Regan told the Journal of Commerce in mid-April. “A company I know has enough inventory to last only through July.” Resilient, but worried US consumer spending has been relatively steadfast so far this year, supported by continued wage increases and low unemployment. US retail sales grew 1.4% month over month in March, the biggest monthly increase since January 2023. Excluding sales of cars and trucks and automotive parts, retail sales only rose 0.5% from February, according to US Census Bureau data. But those results fly in the face of consumer sentiment. The University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment dropped 11% sequentially in April, its fourth consecutive monthly decline. The Conference Board’s monthly index of consumer expectations dropped 9.6 points in March to 65.2, its lowest level in 12 years and far below the threshold of 80 that usually signals a recession ahead. Unlike in 2024, the consumer “is not feeling great,” NRF Chief Economist Jack Kleinhenz said in a statement in mid-April, but the NRF still expects US retail sales to rise this year with or without tariffs. The retailers’ association forecasts retail sales will grow between 2.7% and 3.7% year over year to between $5.42 trillion and $5.48 trillion. What’s more, there’s no expectation the disputes will end in the near future, and even if they do, damage has already been done that will take time to repair. The Trump administration’s goals, whether achievable or not, are part of a long-term strategy that is likely to survive weekly or even daily policy flips. As long as tariff uncertainty and trade wars linger, however, it will be more difficult to find a catalyst that will increase freight demand in the US. That’s pushing hopes for a freight recovery farther into 2026. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com . Journal of Commerce editors Ari Ashe, Greg Knowler, Bill Mongelluzzo and Laura Robb contributed to this report, along with Research Analyst Cathy Morrow Roberson.

Tariff-related disruption spreading as US shippers ‘pause’ plans

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

PRE-MEMORIAL DAY SALE

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Upgrade Subscription

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


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - 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

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Amid the US-China trade dispute, inquiries for bonded storage north of the border have increased four-fold this month, according to one Canada-based third-party logistics provider.</div>

Amid the US-China trade dispute, inquiries for bonded storage north of the border have increased four-fold this month, according to one Canada-based third-party logistics provider.

<div class="phx-topic">US importers are snatching up bonded warehousing in Canada to store freight from China and temporarily avoid paying hefty tariffs on the goods in the hopes the levies are significantly eased before those products need to be in the US. Amid the US-China trade dispute, inquiries for bonded storage in Canada have increased four-fold this month, according to Canadian third-party logistics provider 18 Wheels Warehousing and Trucking. There is no readily available data on bonded storage, but several companies said they’re seeing bonded warehousing space in high demand. “We’ve observed a significant increase in demand for bonded storage solutions in both the US and Canada as a direct response to the US tariffs on Chinese imports,” Brian Riley, senior vice president of Customs House Brokerage at supply chain management company GEODIS, told the Journal of Commerce. “Companies are actively exploring bonded warehouses in both countries to mitigate the impact of these tariffs.” Bonded warehousing, sometimes known as customs warehousing, offers shippers a secure storage facility where imported goods can be stored without paying import duties until they are released — not to be confused with free trade zones (FTZs), said Riley. “FTZs didn’t present a viable alternative due to the duty implications upon submission, unlike bonded warehouses where duties are only applicable upon withdrawal of the goods,” he said. Michael Kotendzhi, CEO of 18 Wheels, attributed the increase in Canadian warehousing to several factors, including the lack of bonded warehousing available in the US, a shipper’s ability to avoid the US tariffs entirely by finding a non-US buyer for the cargo, and the US dollar’s buying power in Canada. “The buying power with the US dollar in Canada is strong,” he said. <h3>Strategic move </h3>One freight forwarder said his customers are looking at bonded warehousing in Canada after they sought to divert their US-bound cargo to Canada, which is not an option. Instead, the forwarder recommends that shippers unload their cargo in the US and move it “in bond” — thus delaying the payment of tariffs — to bonded storage in Canada. “You can’t divert it,” said the forwarder. “You can stop it in the US and move it in bond to Canada — but you can’t take a container that’s destined for a US port and then divert it now to a Canadian port. You can stop it in the US and move it in bond to Canada so that you don’t have to pay the US tariffs.” Riley said while Canadian bonded warehousing is emerging as a strategic alternative when US options are constrained, the decision is ultimately driven by a combination of tariff implications, logistical efficiency and overall cost-effectiveness. “For instance, a company targeting the US Northwest might consider a bonded warehouse in Vancouver as a practical solution if they face limitations in securing space in the Seattle, Tacoma or Portland areas,” he said. “This allows them to hold their goods and then export them to the US when the logistics and cost factors are more favorable.” Forwarders agreed that a growing number of shippers are using the bonded warehouse option as a temporary solution in the hope the tariffs on goods from China are reduced soon. Indeed, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/white-house-considers-slashing-china-tariffs-to-de-escalate-trade-war-6f875d69?mod=WSJ_home_mediumtopper_pos_1">The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday morning</a> that the White House is considering slashing the tariffs, in some cases by more than half, to de-escalate the trade war with Beijing. “The expectation is that this will get some sort of resolution at some point,” said Landon Bibeau, CEO of freight forwarder OEC Group Canada. “And so rather than pay 145% tariffs, hopefully [shippers] can [reduce that cost] or find other customers in Canada.” Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US importers are snatching up bonded warehousing in Canada to store freight from China and temporarily avoid paying hefty tariffs on the goods in the hopes the levies are significantly eased before those products need to be in the US. Amid the US-China trade dispute, inquiries for bonded storage in Canada have increased four-fold this month, according to Canadian third-party logistics provider 18 Wheels Warehousing and Trucking. There is no readily available data on bonded storage, but several companies said they’re seeing bonded warehousing space in high demand. “We’ve observed a significant increase in demand for bonded storage solutions in both the US and Canada as a direct response to the US tariffs on Chinese imports,” Brian Riley, senior vice president of Customs House Brokerage at supply chain management company GEODIS, told the Journal of Commerce. “Companies are actively exploring bonded warehouses in both countries to mitigate the impact of these tariffs.” Bonded warehousing, sometimes known as customs warehousing, offers shippers a secure storage facility where imported goods can be stored without paying import duties until they are released — not to be confused with free trade zones (FTZs), said Riley. “FTZs didn’t present a viable alternative due to the duty implications upon submission, unlike bonded warehouses where duties are only applicable upon withdrawal of the goods,” he said. Michael Kotendzhi, CEO of 18 Wheels, attributed the increase in Canadian warehousing to several factors, including the lack of bonded warehousing available in the US, a shipper’s ability to avoid the US tariffs entirely by finding a non-US buyer for the cargo, and the US dollar’s buying power in Canada. “The buying power with the US dollar in Canada is strong,” he said. Strategic move One freight forwarder said his customers are looking at bonded warehousing in Canada after they sought to divert their US-bound cargo to Canada, which is not an option. Instead, the forwarder recommends that shippers unload their cargo in the US and move it “in bond” — thus delaying the payment of tariffs — to bonded storage in Canada. “You can’t divert it,” said the forwarder. “You can stop it in the US and move it in bond to Canada — but you can’t take a container that’s destined for a US port and then divert it now to a Canadian port. You can stop it in the US and move it in bond to Canada so that you don’t have to pay the US tariffs.” Riley said while Canadian bonded warehousing is emerging as a strategic alternative when US options are constrained, the decision is ultimately driven by a combination of tariff implications, logistical efficiency and overall cost-effectiveness. “For instance, a company targeting the US Northwest might consider a bonded warehouse in Vancouver as a practical solution if they face limitations in securing space in the Seattle, Tacoma or Portland areas,” he said. “This allows them to hold their goods and then export them to the US when the logistics and cost factors are more favorable.” Forwarders agreed that a growing number of shippers are using the bonded warehouse option as a temporary solution in the hope the tariffs on goods from China are reduced soon. Indeed, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday morning that the White House is considering slashing the tariffs, in some cases by more than half, to de-escalate the trade war with Beijing. “The expectation is that this will get some sort of resolution at some point,” said Landon Bibeau, CEO of freight forwarder OEC Group Canada. “And so rather than pay 145% tariffs, hopefully [shippers] can [reduce that cost] or find other customers in Canada.” Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

US importers turn to Canadian bonded storage to delay payment of tariffs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The increase in blank sailings coincides with the Port of Los Angeles’ expectation that container volumes will plunge 14% month over month in week 18 and 38.6% in week 19.</div>

The increase in blank sailings coincides with the Port of Los Angeles’ expectation that container volumes will plunge 14% month over month in week 18 and 38.6% in week 19.

<div class="phx-topic">Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly misattributed April blank sailing data to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. The Journal of Commerce apologizes for the error.Container lines are increasingly blanking trans-Pacific as US importers are increasingly canceling or suspending orders due to tariff increases that have made some business infeasible. The escalation in blank sailings in the last two weeks has been “staggering,” giving a glimpse of just how sharp the decline could be next month, said Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis CEO Alan Murphy. Based on the removal of functional capacity, “carriers now clearly anticipate container demand in week 18 to be 28% lower than expected, and on Asia-North America East Coast in week 19, they now expect shippers to move as much as 42% less cargo than anticipated,” Murphy wrote in the analyst’s Sunday Spotlight newsletter. The increase in blank sailings coincides with the Port of Los Angeles’ expectation that container volumes will plunge 14% month over month in week 18 and 38.6% in week 19, respectively, according to the port’s forecasting tool. In the first full week of May, volumes through the country’s largest import gateway are projected to plummet 43% year over year. Forwarders say bookings from Southeast Asia to the US have held up better than those for shipments from China, presumably thanks to the 90-day suspension of significantly higher tariffs on goods sourced from Vietnam and Cambodia. Imports from those countries now face a 10% tariff, rather than the initially announced duties of 46% and 49%, respectively. Weekly bookings for shipments from China have plunged 37% since March 31, while bookings for Southeast Asian imports from have risen 10%, according to a Monday analysis of data from maritime visibility provider Vizion and analytics firm Dun &amp; Bradstreet. Earlier this month, US retailers slashed their outlook for US imports in the second quarter and the second half, warning that volumes would fall by more than 20% on an annual basis in every month from May through August. <h3>‘Consolidating’ services </h3>Container lines have yet to outright cancel container services, however, choosing instead to blank sailings and skip individual port calls. Taiwan-based Evergreen Marine, which operates the Hangzhou Bay Bridge (HBB) service as part of the Ocean Alliance, has canceled sailings for four straight weeks into Los Angeles and Oakland, removing 8,000 TEUs to 12,000 TEUs of weekly capacity. South Korea, which is serviced on HBB’s call at Busan, reported a 5% drop in exports during the first 20 days of April, following the release of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. Ocean Alliance’s Bohai service, operated by Cosco Shipping, will cancel a China departure for Long Beach in the first week of May, according to vessel schedules, removing 10,000 TEUs of capacity during that time. Ocean Alliance’s Hibiscus Express and Yangtze services are also expected to blank one weekly departure each from China. A US-based executive with an independent ocean carrier who asked not to be identified said that while they have not yet seen further cancellations of their China bookings, there will likely be fewer China port calls as carriers prepare for lower volumes. “We have not seen an increase in cancellations, but the market is still soft,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s likely that carriers will start to consolidate their China services in the short term.” While services may be outright canceled, there appears to be some withdrawal of vessels in the trans-Pacific trade. The 8,500-TEU Cosco Thailand, part of the Pacific South China Express Service operated by OOCL, appears to have been removed from the service’s schedule for May, along with the 8,800-TEU OOCL Utah. Following its voyage back to China, the Cosco Thailand will start calling Mexico’s West Coast ports in late June, according to the vessel’s schedule. The withdrawals effectively leave the 8,063-TEU OOCL Southampton as the only nominated ship in the service, which will require it to only offer a once-a-month service from Asia. <h3>Then, and now </h3>Approximately five years ago, when volumes plunged 62% from February to March, imports from Asia came roaring back and demand remained at historic highs for two years. This time around, however, there’s less reason to expect a similar rebound given the high level of uncertainty around US tariffs — now 145% on imports from China — and months of frontloading in anticipation of the higher duties. Various US retailers tell the Journal of Commerce that they’ve got as much as three and a half months of core inventory, allowing logistics managers to see if President Donald Trump reduces tariff levels or adds exemptions. Some shippers are moving inventory into bonded warehouses to avoid paying tariffs, betting that the severity of US tariffs can’t last more than a few months. Senior Editors Bill Mongelluzzo and Michael Angell and associate editor Laura Robb contributed to this report. Contact Mark Szakonyi at <a href="mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com">mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly misattributed April blank sailing data to Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis. The Journal of Commerce apologizes for the error. Container lines are increasingly blanking trans-Pacific as US importers are increasingly canceling or suspending orders due to tariff increases that have made some business infeasible. The escalation in blank sailings in the last two weeks has been “staggering,” giving a glimpse of just how sharp the decline could be next month, said Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis CEO Alan Murphy. Based on the removal of functional capacity, “carriers now clearly anticipate container demand in week 18 to be 28% lower than expected, and on Asia-North America East Coast in week 19, they now expect shippers to move as much as 42% less cargo than anticipated,” Murphy wrote in the analyst’s Sunday Spotlight newsletter. The increase in blank sailings coincides with the Port of Los Angeles’ expectation that container volumes will plunge 14% month over month in week 18 and 38.6% in week 19, respectively, according to the port’s forecasting tool. In the first full week of May, volumes through the country’s largest import gateway are projected to plummet 43% year over year. Forwarders say bookings from Southeast Asia to the US have held up better than those for shipments from China, presumably thanks to the 90-day suspension of significantly higher tariffs on goods sourced from Vietnam and Cambodia. Imports from those countries now face a 10% tariff, rather than the initially announced duties of 46% and 49%, respectively. Weekly bookings for shipments from China have plunged 37% since March 31, while bookings for Southeast Asian imports from have risen 10%, according to a Monday analysis of data from maritime visibility provider Vizion and analytics firm Dun & Bradstreet. Earlier this month, US retailers slashed their outlook for US imports in the second quarter and the second half, warning that volumes would fall by more than 20% on an annual basis in every month from May through August. ‘Consolidating’ services Container lines have yet to outright cancel container services, however, choosing instead to blank sailings and skip individual port calls. Taiwan-based Evergreen Marine, which operates the Hangzhou Bay Bridge (HBB) service as part of the Ocean Alliance, has canceled sailings for four straight weeks into Los Angeles and Oakland, removing 8,000 TEUs to 12,000 TEUs of weekly capacity. South Korea, which is serviced on HBB’s call at Busan, reported a 5% drop in exports during the first 20 days of April, following the release of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. Ocean Alliance’s Bohai service, operated by Cosco Shipping, will cancel a China departure for Long Beach in the first week of May, according to vessel schedules, removing 10,000 TEUs of capacity during that time. Ocean Alliance’s Hibiscus Express and Yangtze services are also expected to blank one weekly departure each from China. A US-based executive with an independent ocean carrier who asked not to be identified said that while they have not yet seen further cancellations of their China bookings, there will likely be fewer China port calls as carriers prepare for lower volumes. “We have not seen an increase in cancellations, but the market is still soft,” he told the Journal of Commerce. “It’s likely that carriers will start to consolidate their China services in the short term.” While services may be outright canceled, there appears to be some withdrawal of vessels in the trans-Pacific trade. The 8,500-TEU Cosco Thailand, part of the Pacific South China Express Service operated by OOCL, appears to have been removed from the service’s schedule for May, along with the 8,800-TEU OOCL Utah. Following its voyage back to China, the Cosco Thailand will start calling Mexico’s West Coast ports in late June, according to the vessel’s schedule. The withdrawals effectively leave the 8,063-TEU OOCL Southampton as the only nominated ship in the service, which will require it to only offer a once-a-month service from Asia. Then, and now Approximately five years ago, when volumes plunged 62% from February to March, imports from Asia came roaring back and demand remained at historic highs for two years. This time around, however, there’s less reason to expect a similar rebound given the high level of uncertainty around US tariffs — now 145% on imports from China — and months of frontloading in anticipation of the higher duties. Various US retailers tell the Journal of Commerce that they’ve got as much as three and a half months of core inventory, allowing logistics managers to see if President Donald Trump reduces tariff levels or adds exemptions. Some shippers are moving inventory into bonded warehouses to avoid paying tariffs, betting that the severity of US tariffs can’t last more than a few months. Senior Editors Bill Mongelluzzo and Michael Angell and associate editor Laura Robb contributed to this report. Contact Mark Szakonyi at mark.szakonyi@spglobal.com .

North American ports

Asia-US blank sailing forecast for May increasing amid cancellations

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The US Trade Representative (USTR) laid out actions to counter China’s maritime dominance that could put Cosco Shipping and subsidiary OOCL on the hook for millions when their ships call the US. </div>

The US Trade Representative (USTR) laid out actions to counter China’s maritime dominance that could put Cosco Shipping and subsidiary OOCL on the hook for millions when their ships call the US.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Trade Representative (USTR) has narrowed the scope of its tariffs against China’s maritime industry to a fee based on the cargo capacity or container volume of Chinese-operated and -built ships entering US ports. The more targeted actions follow industry warnings that earlier proposals <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">would increase costs for US shippers and pose an existential threat to smaller ports</a>, but China-based ocean carriers could still face millions in fees under the tariffs. In its list of tariff actions that take effect Oct. 14, the USTR said Chinese ocean carriers will be subject to a fee of $50 per net ton of capacity upon arrival at a US port. The fee will go up to $80 after one year, rising each year before topping out at $140 in 2028. Net tonnage measures a ship’s overall cargo capacity, regardless of vessel type. The fee will only be charged at the first port of call on a vessel string and will not stack on top of other port calls. The fee will only be charged five times per year on each vessel. Ocean carriers based outside of China operating Chinese-built ships will face a fee based on either net tonnage or container volume, whichever is higher. Ships built in other countries will not face the same fees, nor will fees be assessed based on the percentage of Chinese-built ships in a carrier’s fleet or orders at Chinese shipyards. The tonnage fee for non-Chinese carriers starts at $18, escalating to $23 by April 2026 and topping out at $33 in 2028. The per-container fee starts at $120 and rises to $153 next year and $250 in 2028. Non-Chinese ocean carriers will be able to waive the fee if they take delivery of a US-built ship of at least the same size within three years. The fees will not apply to Chinese-built ships in US-flag fleets, container ships that are 4,000 TEUs or smaller, voyages of less than 2,000 nautical miles or Chinese-built ships owned by US-based carriers. The capacity-based tariffs come after a series of proposals that included fees of up to $1.5 million based on US port calls by Chinese carriers and similar fees on non-Chinese ocean carriers with Chinese-built ships in their fleets and orders at Chinese shipyards. Other proposals included an export cargo preference for US-built ships. After two days of hearings, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ustrs-china-tonnage-tax-would-squeeze-smaller-trades-stakeholders-5967638">the USTR said it wanted to reduce the potential impact on US shippers</a>, particularly exporters and dry-bulk shippers. Still, the USTR plans tariffs based on the capacity of China-built ships and will still charge fees on that country’s ocean carriers. The goal of the fees is “to further disincentivize use of Chinese shipping services,” the USTR said. <h3>Cosco, OOCL in crosshairs </h3>The USTR’s fees will have the largest impact on ships operated by Cosco Shipping and its subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL). For example, the 13,092-TEU Cosco Hope made five calls to the Port of New York and New Jersey over the last 12 months as part of the Ocean Alliance’s Liberty Bridge service from Europe to the US East Coast, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. With a net tonnage of 63,544 tons, according to Sea-web, the Cosco Hope would have incurred a fee of $3.2 million for each port call. A similar capacity ship operated by a non-Chinese carrier would result in a fee of about $1 million per call. The 13,386-TEU Cosco Italy made 10 calls to the Port of Long Beach during the same period as part of Ocean Alliance’s Hibiscus Express service, Sea-web data show. Its net tonnage would put its fee at $3.3 million per call. The 16,828-TEU OOCL Bauhinia made three port calls to Long Beach as part of the South China Pacific Service. Its net tonnage would result in a fee of $2.8 million per call, according to the USTR’s formula. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Trade Representative (USTR) has narrowed the scope of its tariffs against China’s maritime industry to a fee based on the cargo capacity or container volume of Chinese-operated and -built ships entering US ports. The more targeted actions follow industry warnings that earlier proposals would increase costs for US shippers and pose an existential threat to smaller ports , but China-based ocean carriers could still face millions in fees under the tariffs. In its list of tariff actions that take effect Oct. 14, the USTR said Chinese ocean carriers will be subject to a fee of $50 per net ton of capacity upon arrival at a US port. The fee will go up to $80 after one year, rising each year before topping out at $140 in 2028. Net tonnage measures a ship’s overall cargo capacity, regardless of vessel type. The fee will only be charged at the first port of call on a vessel string and will not stack on top of other port calls. The fee will only be charged five times per year on each vessel. Ocean carriers based outside of China operating Chinese-built ships will face a fee based on either net tonnage or container volume, whichever is higher. Ships built in other countries will not face the same fees, nor will fees be assessed based on the percentage of Chinese-built ships in a carrier’s fleet or orders at Chinese shipyards. The tonnage fee for non-Chinese carriers starts at $18, escalating to $23 by April 2026 and topping out at $33 in 2028. The per-container fee starts at $120 and rises to $153 next year and $250 in 2028. Non-Chinese ocean carriers will be able to waive the fee if they take delivery of a US-built ship of at least the same size within three years. The fees will not apply to Chinese-built ships in US-flag fleets, container ships that are 4,000 TEUs or smaller, voyages of less than 2,000 nautical miles or Chinese-built ships owned by US-based carriers. The capacity-based tariffs come after a series of proposals that included fees of up to $1.5 million based on US port calls by Chinese carriers and similar fees on non-Chinese ocean carriers with Chinese-built ships in their fleets and orders at Chinese shipyards. Other proposals included an export cargo preference for US-built ships. After two days of hearings, the USTR said it wanted to reduce the potential impact on US shippers , particularly exporters and dry-bulk shippers. Still, the USTR plans tariffs based on the capacity of China-built ships and will still charge fees on that country’s ocean carriers. The goal of the fees is “to further disincentivize use of Chinese shipping services,” the USTR said. Cosco, OOCL in crosshairs The USTR’s fees will have the largest impact on ships operated by Cosco Shipping and its subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL). For example, the 13,092-TEU Cosco Hope made five calls to the Port of New York and New Jersey over the last 12 months as part of the Ocean Alliance’s Liberty Bridge service from Europe to the US East Coast, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. With a net tonnage of 63,544 tons, according to Sea-web, the Cosco Hope would have incurred a fee of $3.2 million for each port call. A similar capacity ship operated by a non-Chinese carrier would result in a fee of about $1 million per call. The 13,386-TEU Cosco Italy made 10 calls to the Port of Long Beach during the same period as part of Ocean Alliance’s Hibiscus Express service, Sea-web data show. Its net tonnage would put its fee at $3.3 million per call. The 16,828-TEU OOCL Bauhinia made three port calls to Long Beach as part of the South China Pacific Service. Its net tonnage would result in a fee of $2.8 million per call, according to the USTR’s formula. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Scaled back USTR port tariff to hit Chinese carriers hardest

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Shippers and ocean carriers told the Journal of Commerce they are reviewing the USTR actions to estimate how the fees will flow down to freight costs. </div>

Shippers and ocean carriers told the Journal of Commerce they are reviewing the USTR actions to estimate how the fees will flow down to freight costs.

<div class="phx-topic">Cosco Shipping says new fees that Chinese carriers and ships will be forced to pay for calling the US — possibly as high as $8 million to $10 million per voyage, according to one analyst — are unfair and will “distort” the ocean shipping market. That comes as other ocean carriers grapple with the impact of the fees on freight costs and how to redraw their networks to avoid them. Cosco Shipping Corporation, the container line’s parent, said in a statement Monday that the US Trade Representative (USTR) made a “discriminatory decision” in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">issuing new fees against China’s maritime industry</a>. It said the charges unveiled Friday against China-based ocean carriers and Chinese-built ships in all other fleets will put <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">global supply chains at risk of higher costs and result in less-efficient service</a>. “We firmly oppose the [USTR’s] accusations and the subsequent measures,” Cosco said. “Such measures not only distort fair competition and impede the normal functioning of the global shipping industry, but also threaten its stable and sustainable development.” Barring their rescission, the fees are the USTR’s final actions against China’s carriers and container ships and will take effect in October. The fees will only be charged on the first US port of call on a vessel string, unlike the per-port fee schedule in the original USTR plan. The revised per-voyage fee will be charged a maximum of five times per year on each affected vessel. <h3>Confusion on net tonnage </h3><a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">While less draconian than the initial USTR proposal</a>, Cosco and its Hong Kong subsidiary OOCL face fees that are three times higher than what would be charged to all other ocean carriers. The USTR said the goal of the fees is to “disincentivize” shippers from using China’s ocean carriers. Starting this October, China’s ocean carriers will have to pay $50 per net ton of a vessel arriving at US ports. The fee goes up $30 each year on the anniversary of the USTR’s actions, topping out at $140 in 2028. Ocean carriers based outside of China operating Chinese-built ships will face a fee based on either net tonnage or container volume, whichever is higher. The tonnage fee for non-Chinese carriers starts at $18, escalating to $23 by April 2026 and topping out at $33 in 2028. The per-container fee starts at $120 and rises to $153 next year and $250 in 2028. Shippers and ocean carriers told the Journal of Commerce that they are reviewing the USTR actions to estimate how the fees will flow down to freight costs. But until there’s more clarity from the USTR, the fees are best guesses at this point. The fees are based on a ship’s “net tonnage,” but the USTR’s order does not include a definition of net tonnage. According to the US Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, net tonnage refers to a ship’s internal volume for cargo and is not measured in tons similar to a ship’s deadweight. The US signed a 1969 treaty that bound it to an international convention on measuring net tonnage that is included on a ship’s documentation. However, the Coast Guard noted that there are other ways to measure net tonnage that account for different types of vessels. Data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows the net tonnage of Chinese-built ships of 12,000-TEU to 15,000-TEU capacity can range anywhere from 60,000 to 85,000. Sea-web uses the 1969 international convention on net tonnage. An executive with an independent ocean carrier told the Journal of Commerce that its US services might typically include Chinese-built ships of 8,500-TEU capacity and net tonnage of about 64,000. That would result in a total estimated fee of about $1.2 million, which would average out to approximately $275 to $300 per container, assuming the ship is full at 4,000 containers. The $300 estimate “is in the range of what we are expecting,” the source said. “But we will reshuffle our vessels to limit exposure to USTR fees, so it’s likely to be less overall,” he added. In contrast, the 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Rose, which calls the US East Coast, has net tonnage of 84,940. That would put its port call fee at over $4 million, equating to about $600 per container assuming it is carrying over 6,000 containers. An executive with a European alliance carrier said multiple factors make a per-container rate difficult to estimate at this point, including the fact that ships are not always arriving in port full. Net tonnage generally refers to a ship’s internal volume, but container ships also carry freight on top of their hatches. The source said the USTR fees will result in costs “probably higher” than $300 per container. <h3>Ocean Alliance in focus </h3>Whatever fees other container lines face, Cosco and OOCL face triple the costs. That has some industry watchers looking for both carriers to shuffle US services offered under the Ocean Alliance, alongside partners CMA CGM and Evergreen Marine. Thanks to their role among China’s exporters, Cosco and OOCL have the leading market share in trans-Pacific services to the US, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Cosco and OOCL handled just over 17% of trans-Pacific imports to all US coasts during March 2025. CMA CGM came in second at 13.6%. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="17b008be-6389-4bcf-974c-dea36b662564"></dynamic-object></div>Of Ocean Alliance’s nine direct services to the US West Coast, four are operated by Cosco and OOCL. Those include the Bohai, Hibiscus Express and Yangtse services to Long Beach and the Dahlia service to Seattle. Cosco and OOCL also supply ships to the Manhattan Bridge and South Atlantic Express services to the US East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico Express service. Lars Jensen, CEO and partner of consultancy Vespucci Maritime, said in a LinkedIn post the fees that Cosco and OOCL face for a US port call, which he estimated could be as high as $8 million to $10 million, will likely prompt them to potentially reduce or even eliminate US services altogether. “COSCO and OOCL will be hit harder than other carriers,” Jensen said. “This is likely to cause a network adjustment in Ocean Alliance such that CMA CGM and Evergreen will be operating US-bound services as much as possible.” Ports America Chief Executive Matthew Leech said in another LinkedIn post that Cosco and OOCL “are more disadvantaged than other lines” by the USTR’s actions. But Leech said the Ocean Alliance has options to keep Cosco and OOCL ships busy. The two carriers could handle Ocean Alliance’s services to Europe while CMA CGM and Evergreen redeploy that capacity to US service networks. In media statements, CMA CGM said there are no plans for Cosco or OOCL to withdraw from Ocean Alliance, which lasts under its current agreement until 2032. Cosco’s statement Monday gave no indication of network changes but indicated that it would continue “offering a comprehensive range of dependable services.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Cosco Shipping says new fees that Chinese carriers and ships will be forced to pay for calling the US — possibly as high as $8 million to $10 million per voyage, according to one analyst — are unfair and will “distort” the ocean shipping market. That comes as other ocean carriers grapple with the impact of the fees on freight costs and how to redraw their networks to avoid them. Cosco Shipping Corporation, the container line’s parent, said in a statement Monday that the US Trade Representative (USTR) made a “discriminatory decision” in issuing new fees against China’s maritime industry . It said the charges unveiled Friday against China-based ocean carriers and Chinese-built ships in all other fleets will put global supply chains at risk of higher costs and result in less-efficient service . “We firmly oppose the [USTR’s] accusations and the subsequent measures,” Cosco said. “Such measures not only distort fair competition and impede the normal functioning of the global shipping industry, but also threaten its stable and sustainable development.” Barring their rescission, the fees are the USTR’s final actions against China’s carriers and container ships and will take effect in October. The fees will only be charged on the first US port of call on a vessel string, unlike the per-port fee schedule in the original USTR plan. The revised per-voyage fee will be charged a maximum of five times per year on each affected vessel. Confusion on net tonnage While less draconian than the initial USTR proposal , Cosco and its Hong Kong subsidiary OOCL face fees that are three times higher than what would be charged to all other ocean carriers. The USTR said the goal of the fees is to “disincentivize” shippers from using China’s ocean carriers. Starting this October, China’s ocean carriers will have to pay $50 per net ton of a vessel arriving at US ports. The fee goes up $30 each year on the anniversary of the USTR’s actions, topping out at $140 in 2028. Ocean carriers based outside of China operating Chinese-built ships will face a fee based on either net tonnage or container volume, whichever is higher. The tonnage fee for non-Chinese carriers starts at $18, escalating to $23 by April 2026 and topping out at $33 in 2028. The per-container fee starts at $120 and rises to $153 next year and $250 in 2028. Shippers and ocean carriers told the Journal of Commerce that they are reviewing the USTR actions to estimate how the fees will flow down to freight costs. But until there’s more clarity from the USTR, the fees are best guesses at this point. The fees are based on a ship’s “net tonnage,” but the USTR’s order does not include a definition of net tonnage. According to the US Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, net tonnage refers to a ship’s internal volume for cargo and is not measured in tons similar to a ship’s deadweight. The US signed a 1969 treaty that bound it to an international convention on measuring net tonnage that is included on a ship’s documentation. However, the Coast Guard noted that there are other ways to measure net tonnage that account for different types of vessels. Data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows the net tonnage of Chinese-built ships of 12,000-TEU to 15,000-TEU capacity can range anywhere from 60,000 to 85,000. Sea-web uses the 1969 international convention on net tonnage. An executive with an independent ocean carrier told the Journal of Commerce that its US services might typically include Chinese-built ships of 8,500-TEU capacity and net tonnage of about 64,000. That would result in a total estimated fee of about $1.2 million, which would average out to approximately $275 to $300 per container, assuming the ship is full at 4,000 containers. The $300 estimate “is in the range of what we are expecting,” the source said. “But we will reshuffle our vessels to limit exposure to USTR fees, so it’s likely to be less overall,” he added. In contrast, the 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Rose, which calls the US East Coast, has net tonnage of 84,940. That would put its port call fee at over $4 million, equating to about $600 per container assuming it is carrying over 6,000 containers. An executive with a European alliance carrier said multiple factors make a per-container rate difficult to estimate at this point, including the fact that ships are not always arriving in port full. Net tonnage generally refers to a ship’s internal volume, but container ships also carry freight on top of their hatches. The source said the USTR fees will result in costs “probably higher” than $300 per container. Ocean Alliance in focus Whatever fees other container lines face, Cosco and OOCL face triple the costs. That has some industry watchers looking for both carriers to shuffle US services offered under the Ocean Alliance, alongside partners CMA CGM and Evergreen Marine. Thanks to their role among China’s exporters, Cosco and OOCL have the leading market share in trans-Pacific services to the US, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Cosco and OOCL handled just over 17% of trans-Pacific imports to all US coasts during March 2025. CMA CGM came in second at 13.6%. Of Ocean Alliance’s nine direct services to the US West Coast, four are operated by Cosco and OOCL. Those include the Bohai, Hibiscus Express and Yangtse services to Long Beach and the Dahlia service to Seattle. Cosco and OOCL also supply ships to the Manhattan Bridge and South Atlantic Express services to the US East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico Express service. Lars Jensen, CEO and partner of consultancy Vespucci Maritime, said in a LinkedIn post the fees that Cosco and OOCL face for a US port call, which he estimated could be as high as $8 million to $10 million, will likely prompt them to potentially reduce or even eliminate US services altogether. “COSCO and OOCL will be hit harder than other carriers,” Jensen said. “This is likely to cause a network adjustment in Ocean Alliance such that CMA CGM and Evergreen will be operating US-bound services as much as possible.” Ports America Chief Executive Matthew Leech said in another LinkedIn post that Cosco and OOCL “are more disadvantaged than other lines” by the USTR’s actions. But Leech said the Ocean Alliance has options to keep Cosco and OOCL ships busy. The two carriers could handle Ocean Alliance’s services to Europe while CMA CGM and Evergreen redeploy that capacity to US service networks. In media statements, CMA CGM said there are no plans for Cosco or OOCL to withdraw from Ocean Alliance, which lasts under its current agreement until 2032. Cosco’s statement Monday gave no indication of network changes but indicated that it would continue “offering a comprehensive range of dependable services.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

CMA CGM becomes majority shareholder in Santos Brasil terminal operator

Featured Gateway Chart

Essential Reads

Tariff uncertainty disrupting timeline for trans-Pacific service contract talks

Fallout from US-China trade war to depress trans-Pacific volumes: Drewry

Tariff-related disruption spreading as US shippers ‘pause’ plans

Recent Commentary

Surface industry faces obstacles on way to hoped-for H2 recovery

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

Top 5 Most Read Stories