PDS 2025 Free Trial 640x340.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Free/Free Trials

Events

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Magazine

Supply chain

Gateway

Breakbulk News

Container Shipping News

Port News

Trucking News

Rail News

Air Cargo Forwarder News

Air Cargo Carriers News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Cool Cargo News

Last Mile News

Industrial Real Estate News

Special Reports

Breakbulk carriers

Ro/ro cargo

Energy projects

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

North American ports

Marine terminals

International ports

Longshore labor

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

North-American rail

International rail

Intermodal providers

Quarterly Intelligence Report

Intermodal Savings Index

Domestic Intermodal Service Scorecard

Breakbulk Quarterly Intelligence

PDS 2025 S SP 640x340.png

Subscription Sale Pop Up - Silver/Silver Plus

Resources

Platts Containers Update

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Federal Aviation Administration and the pilot of a small plane caused the 1986 collision of an A</div>

The Federal Aviation Administration and the pilot of a small plane caused the 1986 collision of an A

<div>The Federal Aviation Administration and the pilot of a small plane caused the 1986 collision of an Aeromexico airliner and the small plane that killed 82 people, a federal court jury said.The jury said Aeromexico wasn't to blame for the collision and added that the FAA and private pilot William Kramer, who died in the crash, were equally at fault.The verdict is binding on Mr. Kramer's estate but its findings on Aeromexico and the FAA are advisory to the judge. Damages will be decided at later trials or by settlement.The collision occurred in clear skies on Aug. 31, 1986, as...

The Federal Aviation Administration and the pilot of a small plane caused the 1986 collision of an Aeromexico airliner and the small plane that killed 82 people, a federal court jury said. The jury said Aeromexico wasn't to blame for the collision and added that the FAA and private pilot William Kramer, who died in the crash, were equally at fault.The verdict is binding on Mr. Kramer's estate but its findings on Aeromexico and the FAA are advisory to the judge. Damages will be decided at later trials or by settlement. The collision occurred in clear skies on Aug. 31, 1986, as the Aeromexico DC-9, with 64 people aboard, was approaching Los Angeles International Airport. Data tapes showed that radar recorded Mr. Kramer's single-engine Piper plane although an FAA air controller denied this.

JURY FINDS FAA, DEAD PILOT RESPONSIBLE FOR 1986 CRASH

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Spot rates on the eastbound corridor are fast converging on long-term prices, and carriers want to lock in cargo owners ahead of a return to Red Sea transits and the resulting capacity overhang.</div>

Spot rates on the eastbound corridor are fast converging on long-term prices, and carriers want to lock in cargo owners ahead of a return to Red Sea transits and the resulting capacity overhang.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Uncertainty over the timing of shipping’s resumption of Red Sea transits is being reflected in Asia-North Europe long-term rate deals, with carriers offering substantial “discounts” to shippers agreeing to contracts longer than six months, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. The move by carriers comes as the spot market on the eastbound trade lane continues its slide, with Xeneta’s average short-term rates assessed on Tuesday of $2,949 per FEU now just $199 above the long-term rates signed in the last three months. The data shows Asia-North Europe spot rates have almost halved since the start of the year. Emily Stausbøll, senior shipping analyst at Xeneta, noted in a market update this week that the uncertainty prevalent in the Asia-North Europe trade lane was seeing carriers agreeing to discounts of 22% as they tried to lock shippers in for longer periods. “On the one hand you have the seller trying to incentivize longer-term agreements to manage risk and protect market share...on the other hand, you have the buyer doing everything possible to keep their options open for as long as possible while not spending more than necessary,” Stausbøll said. Marc Meier, global head of ocean freight at the forwarder Toll Group, said freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates on Asia-North Europe were coming under growing pressure and were at the same level as long-term rates for the January to December period. “We expect the market to be decreasing between now and [the] end of March or early April at the earliest before we see conditions to push for a rate increase,” Meier told the Journal of Commerce. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="a1e904d2-7e92-4785-b6a0-a738fca52dd1"></dynamic-object></div>Some carriers have announced March 1 FAK rates on Asia-North Europe of $4,100/FEU. A 22% discount on the current Xeneta spot rate would drop the rate on the index to $2,300/FEU, but with the short-term market softening every week, some cargo owners are holding off on signing contracts. “Some shippers may be happy to lock in for more than six months if it protects their supply chains and negates the need for further negotiation in the event of another major global disruption,” Stausbøll said. “Other shippers may choose to gamble on being able to achieve a lower rate in a few months and are happy to go through another tender round.” <h3>Base case for a second half return to Red Sea </h3>The risk tolerance level of shippers on Asia-North Europe is ultimately based around a guess when diversions around southern Africa will end. The base case of many analysts is for a return to Red Sea transits at some point in the second half, but the fast-changing political dynamics in the Israel-Hamas conflict provide little certainty. Carriers have said they will only return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal “<a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-eye-red-sea-transits-after-houthi-rebels-pledge-restraint-5925939">when it was safe to do so</a>,” and are continuing to divert vessels around Africa despite Hamas-supporting Houthi militants pledging to only attack Israel-affiliated ships following <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/return-to-suez-not-a-certainty-even-after-israel-hamas-ceasefire-analysts-5923830">the start of a ceasefire</a> in Gaza in January. The only consensus appears to be that when Red Sea voyages do finally resume, significant amounts of capacity no longer being diverted will overwhelm the market. Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis expects the impact to be “dramatic” – although temporary – as the trade lane adjusts to the resumption of shorter transits. The analyst estimated that demand growth on Asia-Europe received a boost of 2.9 percentage points in 2024 once the longer voyages and increased inventory levels were factored into the equation. Demand would contract by the same amount when the Red Sea reopens, according to Sea-Intelligence CEO Alan Murphy. “The excess inventory held in the longer supply chain will be released, and for a temporary period, importers will curb ordering to mitigate this sudden excess inventory,” Murphy wrote in his Sunday Spotlight newsletter. "If it unravels over just a few months, the Asia-Europe trade will see dramatic decreases in demand.” Murphy noted that the fall in demand would occur at the same time as shorter sailing times released significant amounts of capacity into the market, with the supply overhang placing downward pressure on rates. But <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/container-shipping-still-has-an-overcapacity-problem-but-its-far-from-insurmountable-5234357">carriers have been playing down the impact of overcapacity</a> once the resumption of transits through Suez occurs, pointing to an increase in scrapping – which has been close to zero for the last few years – and the ability to slow steam ships that have been at full speed since the Africa diversions began. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Uncertainty over the timing of shipping’s resumption of Red Sea transits is being reflected in Asia-North Europe long-term rate deals, with carriers offering substantial “discounts” to shippers agreeing to contracts longer than six months, according to rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. The move by carriers comes as the spot market on the eastbound trade lane continues its slide, with Xeneta’s average short-term rates assessed on Tuesday of $2,949 per FEU now just $199 above the long-term rates signed in the last three months. The data shows Asia-North Europe spot rates have almost halved since the start of the year. Emily Stausbøll, senior shipping analyst at Xeneta, noted in a market update this week that the uncertainty prevalent in the Asia-North Europe trade lane was seeing carriers agreeing to discounts of 22% as they tried to lock shippers in for longer periods. “On the one hand you have the seller trying to incentivize longer-term agreements to manage risk and protect market share...on the other hand, you have the buyer doing everything possible to keep their options open for as long as possible while not spending more than necessary,” Stausbøll said. Marc Meier, global head of ocean freight at the forwarder Toll Group, said freight-all-kinds (FAK) rates on Asia-North Europe were coming under growing pressure and were at the same level as long-term rates for the January to December period. “We expect the market to be decreasing between now and [the] end of March or early April at the earliest before we see conditions to push for a rate increase,” Meier told the Journal of Commerce. Some carriers have announced March 1 FAK rates on Asia-North Europe of $4,100/FEU. A 22% discount on the current Xeneta spot rate would drop the rate on the index to $2,300/FEU, but with the short-term market softening every week, some cargo owners are holding off on signing contracts. “Some shippers may be happy to lock in for more than six months if it protects their supply chains and negates the need for further negotiation in the event of another major global disruption,” Stausbøll said. “Other shippers may choose to gamble on being able to achieve a lower rate in a few months and are happy to go through another tender round.” Base case for a second half return to Red Sea The risk tolerance level of shippers on Asia-North Europe is ultimately based around a guess when diversions around southern Africa will end. The base case of many analysts is for a return to Red Sea transits at some point in the second half, but the fast-changing political dynamics in the Israel-Hamas conflict provide little certainty. Carriers have said they will only return to the Red Sea and Suez Canal “ when it was safe to do so ,” and are continuing to divert vessels around Africa despite Hamas-supporting Houthi militants pledging to only attack Israel-affiliated ships following the start of a ceasefire in Gaza in January. The only consensus appears to be that when Red Sea voyages do finally resume, significant amounts of capacity no longer being diverted will overwhelm the market. Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis expects the impact to be “dramatic” – although temporary – as the trade lane adjusts to the resumption of shorter transits. The analyst estimated that demand growth on Asia-Europe received a boost of 2.9 percentage points in 2024 once the longer voyages and increased inventory levels were factored into the equation. Demand would contract by the same amount when the Red Sea reopens, according to Sea-Intelligence CEO Alan Murphy. “The excess inventory held in the longer supply chain will be released, and for a temporary period, importers will curb ordering to mitigate this sudden excess inventory,” Murphy wrote in his Sunday Spotlight newsletter. "If it unravels over just a few months, the Asia-Europe trade will see dramatic decreases in demand.” Murphy noted that the fall in demand would occur at the same time as shorter sailing times released significant amounts of capacity into the market, with the supply overhang placing downward pressure on rates. But carriers have been playing down the impact of overcapacity once the resumption of transits through Suez occurs, pointing to an increase in scrapping – which has been close to zero for the last few years – and the ability to slow steam ships that have been at full speed since the Africa diversions began. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Asia-Europe carriers dangle contract discounts before shippers: Xeneta

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index hit a 10-year low in the fourth quarter, but its rate of decline has slowed considerably as truckload pricing begins to rise from its bottom.</div>

The Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index hit a 10-year low in the fourth quarter, but its rate of decline has slowed considerably as truckload pricing begins to rise from its bottom.

<div class="phx-topic">Large US truckload carriers made shallow cuts to their truck counts in the fourth quarter, curbing capacity while anticipating an end to a more than two-year freight downturn. From the carriers’ perspective, that turning point <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stakeholders-still-in-wait-and-see-mode-on-us-freight-market-turn-5941683">is long overdue</a>. US shippers using truckload services have enjoyed an unprecedented long stretch of pricing power, and the pendulum bearing negotiating leverage hasn’t swung back toward the carriers yet. “Market conditions continue to favor the shipper,” Landstar System CEO Frank Lonegro said during a recent earnings call. He cited “choppy conditions” in the industrial economy, which saw an <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-rates-rising-as-industrial-outlook-shipper-confidence-improve-5944443">uptick in orders</a> and production in January. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="0207574c-45c4-46a7-bcc6-498de7fadebe"></dynamic-object></div>Even so, the truckload carriers represented by the Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) are trimming rather than slashing their fleet counts, which they <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/large-carrier-truckload-capacity-stabilizing-alongside-rates-5788958">cut deeply</a> from 2022 through mid-2024. That indicates they see a turning point on the horizon. “The fundamentals of the general freight industry have improved to a level that is now allowing us to negotiate pricing from a better posture than the last two years,” James Grant, CFO of Covenant Logistics, told Wall Street analysts during a January earnings call. <h3>Lowest TCI in 10 years </h3>The TCI, a measure of truck capacity at some of the largest US truckload providers, dropped from 76.6 in the third quarter to 75.7 in the fourth quarter, its lowest reading in 10 years. The index is down 18.8% from its mid-2022 peak reading of 93.2. But the purge of equipment from large truckload fleets has slowed in the past two quarters, as business for many companies began to gradually and incrementally improve. Capacity is still readily available to shippers in truckload lanes, with only occasional pockets of tightness, according to trucking executives. That underscores just how much small-carrier truckload capacity entered the market from 2020 through 2023. The number of active motor carrier operating authorities — mostly truckload carriers — rose 53% from 2019 through 2022, according to the US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Since 2022, about 35,000 to 40,000 trucking companies have left the market, whether through shutdowns or acquisitions. “While capacity has continued to exit the market, the pace has been slow,” Derek Leathers, CEO of Werner Enterprises, said during a Feb. 6 earnings call. That shows carriers are finding ways to stay on the road despite low rates. <h3>A coming bounce? </h3>There are indicators that the Journal of Commerce TCI may begin to climb again in the next few quarters, possibly turning upward by the third quarter of 2025. From mid-2022 through mid-2024, the US long-distance truckload producer price index (PPI) fell 24.2%. The PPI represents all-inclusive, mostly contractual selling prices. From last June through January, however, the PPI climbed 6.5%, mostly since November. Last month, the truckload PPI was up 6.4% year over year.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="949edfd1-bde1-4178-8bc3-b818539048c2"></dynamic-object></div>The Journal of Commerce TCI typically lags the PPI and other pricing measures by several months. Most truckload pricing indexes were largely flat from mid-2023 through late 2024. Improvements in pricing are likely to show up in the TCI in the second half of 2025. Leathers expects fairly limited truck count growth in the first half of 2025, with most of that growth in dedicated fleets. “We’re not looking to grow that one-way truckload fleet intentionally, at least until we get a much improved rate environment,” Leathers said. Lonegro expects Landstar’s truck count to continue to drop in the first quarter. “I’d like to think that we’re in the beginning of the next cycle, but I could also argue that we’re at the end of the prior cycle,” he said. “It does feel like some capacity needs to continue to come out.” Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Large US truckload carriers made shallow cuts to their truck counts in the fourth quarter, curbing capacity while anticipating an end to a more than two-year freight downturn. From the carriers’ perspective, that turning point is long overdue . US shippers using truckload services have enjoyed an unprecedented long stretch of pricing power, and the pendulum bearing negotiating leverage hasn’t swung back toward the carriers yet. “Market conditions continue to favor the shipper,” Landstar System CEO Frank Lonegro said during a recent earnings call. He cited “choppy conditions” in the industrial economy, which saw an uptick in orders and production in January. Even so, the truckload carriers represented by the Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) are trimming rather than slashing their fleet counts, which they cut deeply from 2022 through mid-2024. That indicates they see a turning point on the horizon. “The fundamentals of the general freight industry have improved to a level that is now allowing us to negotiate pricing from a better posture than the last two years,” James Grant, CFO of Covenant Logistics, told Wall Street analysts during a January earnings call. Lowest TCI in 10 years The TCI, a measure of truck capacity at some of the largest US truckload providers, dropped from 76.6 in the third quarter to 75.7 in the fourth quarter, its lowest reading in 10 years. The index is down 18.8% from its mid-2022 peak reading of 93.2. But the purge of equipment from large truckload fleets has slowed in the past two quarters, as business for many companies began to gradually and incrementally improve. Capacity is still readily available to shippers in truckload lanes, with only occasional pockets of tightness, according to trucking executives. That underscores just how much small-carrier truckload capacity entered the market from 2020 through 2023. The number of active motor carrier operating authorities — mostly truckload carriers — rose 53% from 2019 through 2022, according to the US Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). Since 2022, about 35,000 to 40,000 trucking companies have left the market, whether through shutdowns or acquisitions. “While capacity has continued to exit the market, the pace has been slow,” Derek Leathers, CEO of Werner Enterprises, said during a Feb. 6 earnings call. That shows carriers are finding ways to stay on the road despite low rates. A coming bounce? There are indicators that the Journal of Commerce TCI may begin to climb again in the next few quarters, possibly turning upward by the third quarter of 2025. From mid-2022 through mid-2024, the US long-distance truckload producer price index (PPI) fell 24.2%. The PPI represents all-inclusive, mostly contractual selling prices. From last June through January, however, the PPI climbed 6.5%, mostly since November. Last month, the truckload PPI was up 6.4% year over year. The Journal of Commerce TCI typically lags the PPI and other pricing measures by several months. Most truckload pricing indexes were largely flat from mid-2023 through late 2024. Improvements in pricing are likely to show up in the TCI in the second half of 2025. Leathers expects fairly limited truck count growth in the first half of 2025, with most of that growth in dedicated fleets. “We’re not looking to grow that one-way truckload fleet intentionally, at least until we get a much improved rate environment,” Leathers said. Lonegro expects Landstar’s truck count to continue to drop in the first quarter. “I’d like to think that we’re in the beginning of the next cycle, but I could also argue that we’re at the end of the prior cycle,” he said. “It does feel like some capacity needs to continue to come out.” Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Large US truckload carriers, expecting more demand, rein in capacity cuts

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Unless legally binding safeguards are introduced, there is a risk that fossil fuels will be replaced with unsustainable biofuels that provide “a cure worse than the disease,” shipping groups said in an open letter to the IMO.</div>

Unless legally binding safeguards are introduced, there is a risk that fossil fuels will be replaced with unsustainable biofuels that provide “a cure worse than the disease,” shipping groups said in an open letter to the IMO.

<div class="phx-topic">Hapag-Lloyd, Hoegh Autoliners and Louis Dreyfus are among several shipping companies calling for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to exclude crop-based biofuels from its list of sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels citing fears of deforestation and water and food scarcity. The call, which included shipping association NABU and climate activist Transport &amp; Environment (T&amp;E), comes despite the continuing rollout of lower-emission feedstock-based biofuel services by several carriers, including Hapag-Lloyd, as growing regulatory pressure on shippers to reduce their “scope 3” supply chain carbon footprints increases demand for those services. The groups outlined their concerns in an open letter to the IMO ahead of the 18th Intersessional Working Group on Greenhouse Gases that is meeting in London this week. “Unless legally binding safeguards are introduced, there is a risk that a large amount of fossil fuels will be replaced with unsustainable biofuels,” the open letter warned. It pointed out that Europe has already decided to exclude the use of feed- and food-based biofuels from its flagship shipping fuels regulation known as FuelEU, adding that the IMO should follow suit. “The IMO should take note of the biofuels policy experiences and avoid similar mistakes to ensure a sustainable future for international shipping ... otherwise we risk deploying a cure worse than the disease to address shipping’s climate impact,” the open letter said. While some biofuels may be produced sustainably and deliver significant greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, there are scalability limitations. Most biofuels are produced from food crop-based feedstocks, which come with direct and indirect deforestation, as well as many other sustainability issues ranging from water scarcity to food security, the letter said. The volumes carried under the premium feedstock-based biofuel products offered by Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, Ocean Network Express, CMA CGM and HMM are slowly increasing but are only growing at low single-digit percentages of annual volumes. Carrier executives also acknowledge that biofuel is, at best, a temporary measure and not a means to achieve the IMO’s 2030 targets of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% to 30%. <h3>Biofuel demand driving deforestation </h3>The open letter to the IMO noted that when the EU decided to encourage the use of biofuels in 2009, the consumption of palm oil-based biofuels doubled over the following 10 years, comprising close to one-third of EU biofuels use by 2020. Scientific evidence later demonstrated that 45% of palm oil expansion happened at the expense of carbon-rich ecosystems such as forests or peatlands over that same period, with similar findings uncovered for other crop-based feedstock such as soy, the letter said. A study by energy consultancy Cerulogy on behalf of T&amp;E shows that palm and soy oil would likely make up almost two-thirds of the biodiesel used to power the shipping industry in 2030 because they represented the cheapest fuels to comply with emissions reduction targets. However, that would have a detrimental impact on the climate with palm and soy responsible for two to three times more carbon emissions than even the dirtiest shipping fuels today once deforestation and land clearance are considered, T&amp;E warned. “Fueling cargo ships with deforestation is a terrible idea. Burning crops for fuel is bad for the planet and bad for global food security,” Constance Dijkstra, shipping manager at T&amp;E, said in a statement Monday. “The IMO should consider the climate impact of bad biofuels to avoid doing more harm than good.” T&amp;E said waste biofuels such as used cooking oil and animal fats had limited availability and would only cover just a small proportion of shipping’s projected biofuel demand. As an example, T&amp;E noted that a cargo ship traveling between China and Brazil would require the yearly waste oil from more than 2,000 McDonald’s restaurants, and to run the vessel on animal fats would require more than one million pigs. T&amp;E estimated that 34 million hectares of farmland — the total area of Germany — would be needed by 2030 to produce enough crops to meet the increased biofuels demand from the shipping industry alone. Still, demand for biofuel is not only from shipping. China is the world’s main producer of biofuel derived from used cooking oil and exports more than half of its stocks, mainly to power trucks in the US and Europe. Airlines are also ramping up their usage of biofuel-generated sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). More sustainable routes to net-zero are being debated this week at the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group, where proposals for a carbon intensity index and fuel efficiency standards, economic measures such as carbon pricing and new technologies for cleaner marine fuels will be among the topics under discussion. The working group will meet again in April before their recommendations are carried over to the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting April 7-11 that will vote on the crucial mid-term measures, including a global pricing mechanism for carbon emissions to be rolled out in October. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Hapag-Lloyd, Hoegh Autoliners and Louis Dreyfus are among several shipping companies calling for the International Maritime Organization (IMO) to exclude crop-based biofuels from its list of sustainable alternatives to fossil fuels citing fears of deforestation and water and food scarcity. The call, which included shipping association NABU and climate activist Transport & Environment (T&E), comes despite the continuing rollout of lower-emission feedstock-based biofuel services by several carriers, including Hapag-Lloyd, as growing regulatory pressure on shippers to reduce their “scope 3” supply chain carbon footprints increases demand for those services. The groups outlined their concerns in an open letter to the IMO ahead of the 18th Intersessional Working Group on Greenhouse Gases that is meeting in London this week. “Unless legally binding safeguards are introduced, there is a risk that a large amount of fossil fuels will be replaced with unsustainable biofuels,” the open letter warned. It pointed out that Europe has already decided to exclude the use of feed- and food-based biofuels from its flagship shipping fuels regulation known as FuelEU, adding that the IMO should follow suit. “The IMO should take note of the biofuels policy experiences and avoid similar mistakes to ensure a sustainable future for international shipping ... otherwise we risk deploying a cure worse than the disease to address shipping’s climate impact,” the open letter said. While some biofuels may be produced sustainably and deliver significant greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions, there are scalability limitations. Most biofuels are produced from food crop-based feedstocks, which come with direct and indirect deforestation, as well as many other sustainability issues ranging from water scarcity to food security, the letter said. The volumes carried under the premium feedstock-based biofuel products offered by Hapag-Lloyd, Maersk, Ocean Network Express, CMA CGM and HMM are slowly increasing but are only growing at low single-digit percentages of annual volumes. Carrier executives also acknowledge that biofuel is, at best, a temporary measure and not a means to achieve the IMO’s 2030 targets of reducing CO2 emissions by 20% to 30%. Biofuel demand driving deforestation The open letter to the IMO noted that when the EU decided to encourage the use of biofuels in 2009, the consumption of palm oil-based biofuels doubled over the following 10 years, comprising close to one-third of EU biofuels use by 2020. Scientific evidence later demonstrated that 45% of palm oil expansion happened at the expense of carbon-rich ecosystems such as forests or peatlands over that same period, with similar findings uncovered for other crop-based feedstock such as soy, the letter said. A study by energy consultancy Cerulogy on behalf of T&E shows that palm and soy oil would likely make up almost two-thirds of the biodiesel used to power the shipping industry in 2030 because they represented the cheapest fuels to comply with emissions reduction targets. However, that would have a detrimental impact on the climate with palm and soy responsible for two to three times more carbon emissions than even the dirtiest shipping fuels today once deforestation and land clearance are considered, T&E warned. “Fueling cargo ships with deforestation is a terrible idea. Burning crops for fuel is bad for the planet and bad for global food security,” Constance Dijkstra, shipping manager at T&E, said in a statement Monday. “The IMO should consider the climate impact of bad biofuels to avoid doing more harm than good.” T&E said waste biofuels such as used cooking oil and animal fats had limited availability and would only cover just a small proportion of shipping’s projected biofuel demand. As an example, T&E noted that a cargo ship traveling between China and Brazil would require the yearly waste oil from more than 2,000 McDonald’s restaurants, and to run the vessel on animal fats would require more than one million pigs. T&E estimated that 34 million hectares of farmland — the total area of Germany — would be needed by 2030 to produce enough crops to meet the increased biofuels demand from the shipping industry alone. Still, demand for biofuel is not only from shipping. China is the world’s main producer of biofuel derived from used cooking oil and exports more than half of its stocks, mainly to power trucks in the US and Europe. Airlines are also ramping up their usage of biofuel-generated sustainable aviation fuel (SAF). More sustainable routes to net-zero are being debated this week at the IMO’s Intersessional Working Group, where proposals for a carbon intensity index and fuel efficiency standards, economic measures such as carbon pricing and new technologies for cleaner marine fuels will be among the topics under discussion. The working group will meet again in April before their recommendations are carried over to the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting April 7-11 that will vote on the crucial mid-term measures, including a global pricing mechanism for carbon emissions to be rolled out in October. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Biofuel not the answer to shipping decarbonization: carriers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A 5.8% jump in the less-than-truckload producer price index in January accompanied growth in US manufacturing orders and output.</div>

A 5.8% jump in the less-than-truckload producer price index in January accompanied growth in US manufacturing orders and output.

<div class="phx-topic">US less-than-truckload (LTL) freight volumes have been flat in early 2025, depressed by soft demand and harsh winter weather. But LTL trucking companies are <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/green-shoots-in-us-economy-fuel-optimism-but-not-exuberance-among-ltl-carriers-5933070">increasingly optimistic</a> about a potential increase in freight demand this spring. LTL carriers continue to obtain contract rate increases from shippers. Industrial orders and output kicked into higher gear in January, and shippers are more confident about their business prospects — although still uncertain about the impact of tariffs. After going flat for four straight months, the US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) shot up 5.8% in January from December, according to data released Thursday by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The LTL PPI was up 6.2% year over year. The sudden ascent of the LTL PPI last month — a measure of all-inclusive pricing — lit up the trucking landscape like a firework. The 5.8% gain in January was the biggest monthly increase in the PPI since the collapse of Yellow in August 2023. That is a clear signal LTL rates are back on an upward track ahead of any comparable increase in LTL freight demand. In mid-February, however, there is a sense that happy days are at least near again for US manufacturers and the LTL carriers that move their freight. All eyes are on March, typically the make-or-break month for the first quarter when it comes to demand. March is also when threatened tariffs against Mexico and Canada, two of the largest US trading partners, could take effect. <h3>PMIs turning positive </h3>Optimism alone won’t put freight into 53-foot trailers, but increased industrial production would help. Both the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) and S&amp;P Global Purchasing Manager’s Indexes (PMIs) turned positive in January, a sign of industrial recovery. The ISM PMI rose to 50.9%, signaling expansion for the first time in 26 months, and the PMI published by S&amp;P Global, the parent company of the Journal of Commerce, climbed to 51.2%. New manufacturing orders increased for the first time since last June as businesses expressed greater confidence in the US economy, according to the S&amp;P Global PMI. US manufacturing production output rose for the first time in six months. “A new year and a new president have brought new optimism in the US manufacturing sector,” Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, said in a statement. That optimism is evident in higher levels of hiring at factories. Those increases, which S&amp;P Global still called “modest,” are whetting freight appetites. “We’d love to see increased business levels with our industrial-related customers,” Adam Satterfield, CFO of Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), said during a Feb. 3 earnings call. ODFL is the second-largest US LTL provider after FedEx Freight. “In the fourth quarter, we saw our industrial business outperform our retail-related business for the first time in a while,” Satterfield said. However, ODFL’s shipments per day were down 7.6% year over year in the fourth quarter, while tonnage dropped 8.2%. <h3>Waiting for the freight </h3>Despite rising expectations, the lack of actual freight on docks still anchors LTL carriers, and to a lesser extent, LTL pricing. Overall shipment volume fell 5.3% in January from December and was down 8.2% year over year, according to data released by Cass Thursday. The Cass Index is a broad measure of shipment traffic encompassing LTL, truckload and other modes. Industrial shipments on docks or in trucks typically lag increases in the PMI by about two months, ODFL’s Satterfield said. “We’re in a great spot to take those increased shipments if they materialize,” he said. But Satterfield believes the industrial freight recovery will be slow. “It’s going to be a multiyear type of story,” he said.Most shippers surveyed by XPO expect a gradual improvement in demand this year, CEO Mario Harik said during a recent earnings call. The carrier’s January survey saw an increase of 10 percentage points in customers expecting demand to accelerate, with only 15% expecting deceleration. “Obviously, we can’t control the macro environment, but we are hearing more optimism from customers,” he said. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US less-than-truckload (LTL) freight volumes have been flat in early 2025, depressed by soft demand and harsh winter weather. But LTL trucking companies are increasingly optimistic about a potential increase in freight demand this spring. LTL carriers continue to obtain contract rate increases from shippers. Industrial orders and output kicked into higher gear in January, and shippers are more confident about their business prospects — although still uncertain about the impact of tariffs. After going flat for four straight months, the US long-distance LTL producer price index (PPI) shot up 5.8% in January from December, according to data released Thursday by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The LTL PPI was up 6.2% year over year. The sudden ascent of the LTL PPI last month — a measure of all-inclusive pricing — lit up the trucking landscape like a firework. The 5.8% gain in January was the biggest monthly increase in the PPI since the collapse of Yellow in August 2023. That is a clear signal LTL rates are back on an upward track ahead of any comparable increase in LTL freight demand. In mid-February, however, there is a sense that happy days are at least near again for US manufacturers and the LTL carriers that move their freight. All eyes are on March, typically the make-or-break month for the first quarter when it comes to demand. March is also when threatened tariffs against Mexico and Canada, two of the largest US trading partners, could take effect. PMIs turning positive Optimism alone won’t put freight into 53-foot trailers, but increased industrial production would help. Both the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) and S&P Global Purchasing Manager’s Indexes (PMIs) turned positive in January, a sign of industrial recovery. The ISM PMI rose to 50.9%, signaling expansion for the first time in 26 months, and the PMI published by S&P Global, the parent company of the Journal of Commerce, climbed to 51.2%. New manufacturing orders increased for the first time since last June as businesses expressed greater confidence in the US economy, according to the S&P Global PMI. US manufacturing production output rose for the first time in six months. “A new year and a new president have brought new optimism in the US manufacturing sector,” Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in a statement. That optimism is evident in higher levels of hiring at factories. Those increases, which S&P Global still called “modest,” are whetting freight appetites. “We’d love to see increased business levels with our industrial-related customers,” Adam Satterfield, CFO of Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL), said during a Feb. 3 earnings call. ODFL is the second-largest US LTL provider after FedEx Freight. “In the fourth quarter, we saw our industrial business outperform our retail-related business for the first time in a while,” Satterfield said. However, ODFL’s shipments per day were down 7.6% year over year in the fourth quarter, while tonnage dropped 8.2%. Waiting for the freight Despite rising expectations, the lack of actual freight on docks still anchors LTL carriers, and to a lesser extent, LTL pricing. Overall shipment volume fell 5.3% in January from December and was down 8.2% year over year, according to data released by Cass Thursday. The Cass Index is a broad measure of shipment traffic encompassing LTL, truckload and other modes. Industrial shipments on docks or in trucks typically lag increases in the PMI by about two months, ODFL’s Satterfield said. “We’re in a great spot to take those increased shipments if they materialize,” he said. But Satterfield believes the industrial freight recovery will be slow. “It’s going to be a multiyear type of story,” he said. Most shippers surveyed by XPO expect a gradual improvement in demand this year, CEO Mario Harik said during a recent earnings call. The carrier’s January survey saw an increase of 10 percentage points in customers expecting demand to accelerate, with only 15% expecting deceleration. “Obviously, we can’t control the macro environment, but we are hearing more optimism from customers,” he said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

US LTL rates rising as industrial outlook, shipper confidence improve

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While carriers are progressively mastering the dark arts of blank sailings, inexplicable and/or unexplainable surcharges and other supply restraints and revenue enhancements, no amount of those tactics will be sufficient to deal with the oversupply of capacity once the Red Sea reopens, writes John McCauley.</div>

While carriers are progressively mastering the dark arts of blank sailings, inexplicable and/or unexplainable surcharges and other supply restraints and revenue enhancements, no amount of those tactics will be sufficient to deal with the oversupply of capacity once the Red Sea reopens, writes John McCauley.

<div class="phx-topic">It would be easy to be distracted by the noise in the supply chains of any organization today that has non-discretionary reliance on container shipping. By that I mean the organizations that have no transport or supply alternatives and are consigned to finding the right answers for their freight procurement. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5944344_0.1.jpg"></img></div>And there is plenty of noise to contend with — some real (Red Sea, China tariffs), some threats (more tariffs) and many unknowns (service levels under the new alliances). However, stripping all that away, it is essential for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) to focus on what they know. And what they know is what volume they can anticipate TODAY for the forthcoming months up to a year, what their price history is with all carriers, and a view on what they can and cannot afford should rates go against them. What is also clear is that BCOs have learned a lot from the pandemic era about managing supply chain risk, balancing stock-outs and missed sales versus inventory carry, and to be less reliant on air freight as a reliable and available backup plan. BCOs have also seen a marked shift in carrier behavior. While relationships still count for tactical requirements, many of the decisions that were made locally (e.g. space availability for BCOs in excess of agreed quantities) have now been elevated to regional or central decision makers. Carriers are not passing up opportunities as they may have in the past, and BCOs, shippers and forwarders are feeling the impact. <h3>BCO chatter </h3>So how does this play out for the current contracting round? Here are some takeaways from discussions I am having with BCOs: Firstly, carriers are as cautious as BCOs in their approach. The potential for massive overcapacity should the Red Sea really open up (not just words or temporary truces) is a systemic threat to carriers. While carriers are progressively mastering the dark arts of blank sailings, inexplicable and/or unexplainable surcharges and other supply restraints and revenue enhancements, no amount of these tactics will be sufficient to deal with the oversupply of capacity once the Red Sea reopens. Secondly, an early indicator of a carrier’s expectations is their willingness to engage in three-month contracts, at best six, with a significant premium for a full year. Furthermore, very few carriers (I haven’t heard of any) are willing to give rates inclusive of surcharges. BCO tenders often specifically exclude surcharges, thereby giving surcharges a degree of credibility but also with a requirement they be discussed and agreed ahead of time for both the level of the surcharge and its duration. Thirdly, rate levels for backhauls continue to decline, and depending on the cargo characteristics, destination, weight, etc., close to zero all-in freight rates are back. Fourth, there is high skepticism of the new service levels, particularly Gemini Cooperation, and its ability to settle into expected (not promised) service levels. There is seemingly no appetite from carriers to link pricing to performance, even if shippers are willing to consider no or delayed show from their side. This surely indicates acknowledgement from carriers they do not expect significant improvement, at least in the short term. Finally, many BCOs recall the shenanigans about minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) and a 52-week division being held against them, particularly when volumes grew and space was denied or only given at premium rates. BCOs are likely to commit to less than 100% MQC to protect themselves on the upside and, regrettably, have some margin should volumes fall. <h3>De minimis unknowns </h3>So, what to make of all of this? The market is back in balance right now. BCOs I spoke to are not factoring in a return to Red Sea transit for this year. On that basis, the logic would be to stay in the short-term market of three months to a max of six. A full-year rate will likely attract a premium, but that may well be acceptable. The final thing to watch out for is the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/europe-joins-us-in-call-for-end-to-e-commerce-de-minimis-exemption-5943108">de minimis drama</a>. It is not out of the question that air freight volumes may be adversely affected, and China exporters may find new solutions to deliver these items cheaply in the US and Europe. I expect this would not significantly affect the sea freight market but may make air freight cheaper for promotions, urgent shipments or high-value goods currently consigned to sea that could switch back to air. Of course, if the Red Sea does reopen and traffic resumes through the Suez Canal, all bets are off for rate levels. It would be worse than any slump seen in the 2010s. John McCauley, formerly a long-standing vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at <a href="mailto:john-mccauley1@outlook.com">john-mccauley1@outlook.com</a>.</div>

It would be easy to be distracted by the noise in the supply chains of any organization today that has non-discretionary reliance on container shipping. By that I mean the organizations that have no transport or supply alternatives and are consigned to finding the right answers for their freight procurement. And there is plenty of noise to contend with — some real (Red Sea, China tariffs), some threats (more tariffs) and many unknowns (service levels under the new alliances). However, stripping all that away, it is essential for beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) to focus on what they know. And what they know is what volume they can anticipate TODAY for the forthcoming months up to a year, what their price history is with all carriers, and a view on what they can and cannot afford should rates go against them. What is also clear is that BCOs have learned a lot from the pandemic era about managing supply chain risk, balancing stock-outs and missed sales versus inventory carry, and to be less reliant on air freight as a reliable and available backup plan. BCOs have also seen a marked shift in carrier behavior. While relationships still count for tactical requirements, many of the decisions that were made locally (e.g. space availability for BCOs in excess of agreed quantities) have now been elevated to regional or central decision makers. Carriers are not passing up opportunities as they may have in the past, and BCOs, shippers and forwarders are feeling the impact. BCO chatter So how does this play out for the current contracting round? Here are some takeaways from discussions I am having with BCOs: Firstly, carriers are as cautious as BCOs in their approach. The potential for massive overcapacity should the Red Sea really open up (not just words or temporary truces) is a systemic threat to carriers. While carriers are progressively mastering the dark arts of blank sailings, inexplicable and/or unexplainable surcharges and other supply restraints and revenue enhancements, no amount of these tactics will be sufficient to deal with the oversupply of capacity once the Red Sea reopens. Secondly, an early indicator of a carrier’s expectations is their willingness to engage in three-month contracts, at best six, with a significant premium for a full year. Furthermore, very few carriers (I haven’t heard of any) are willing to give rates inclusive of surcharges. BCO tenders often specifically exclude surcharges, thereby giving surcharges a degree of credibility but also with a requirement they be discussed and agreed ahead of time for both the level of the surcharge and its duration. Thirdly, rate levels for backhauls continue to decline, and depending on the cargo characteristics, destination, weight, etc., close to zero all-in freight rates are back. Fourth, there is high skepticism of the new service levels, particularly Gemini Cooperation, and its ability to settle into expected (not promised) service levels. There is seemingly no appetite from carriers to link pricing to performance, even if shippers are willing to consider no or delayed show from their side. This surely indicates acknowledgement from carriers they do not expect significant improvement, at least in the short term. Finally, many BCOs recall the shenanigans about minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) and a 52-week division being held against them, particularly when volumes grew and space was denied or only given at premium rates. BCOs are likely to commit to less than 100% MQC to protect themselves on the upside and, regrettably, have some margin should volumes fall. De minimis unknowns So, what to make of all of this? The market is back in balance right now. BCOs I spoke to are not factoring in a return to Red Sea transit for this year. On that basis, the logic would be to stay in the short-term market of three months to a max of six. A full-year rate will likely attract a premium, but that may well be acceptable. The final thing to watch out for is the de minimis drama . It is not out of the question that air freight volumes may be adversely affected, and China exporters may find new solutions to deliver these items cheaply in the US and Europe. I expect this would not significantly affect the sea freight market but may make air freight cheaper for promotions, urgent shipments or high-value goods currently consigned to sea that could switch back to air. Of course, if the Red Sea does reopen and traffic resumes through the Suez Canal, all bets are off for rate levels. It would be worse than any slump seen in the 2010s. John McCauley, formerly a long-standing vice president of transportation and logistics at Cargill, now consults for shippers. Contact him at john-mccauley1@outlook.com .

BCOs have plenty of ‘noise’ to contend with in container shipping market: analyst

Use code PDW25 at checkout to save 25% on the first year of any annual subscription! Offer ends Friday, February 28.

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

PRESIDENTS DAY SALE

Register today to redeem your Gold subscriber discount!

TPM Discount - Gold

Save 20% on TPM25

Use code PDW25 at checkout to save 25% on the first year of any annual subscription! offer ends Friday, February 28.

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

Use code PDW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription! Offer ends Friday, February 28. 

Upgrade Subscription - 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

PRESIDENTS DAY SALE: Use code PDW25 at checkout to save 25% on first year of any annual subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

20% OFF ON TPM25: Register today and redeem your Gold subscriber discount!

TPM Discount - Gold 

20% OFF ON TPM25

PRESIDENTS DAY SALE: Use code PDW695 at checkout and save $800 on first year of a Gold subscription! 

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

Upgrade Subscription

PRESIDENTS DAY SALE: Use code PDW25 at checkout to save 25% on first year of any subscription plan!


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk25

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

TPM Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend TPM25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The Journal of Commerce’s air cargo news covers the movement of air cargo, including air cargo shipping, air cargo carriers, air freight forwarders, air freight, air shipments, cargo airports and cargo news. It also tracks air cargo trends, air freight news, shifting of cargo between air and ocean, airports and airfreight delays and congestion.

Journal of Commerce offers extensive air freight forwarder news and analysis of air cargo forwarding, including topics such as strategies, capacity, services.

Air Cargo Forwarder News | Journal of Commerce

Stay informed with air cargo carriers news. Journal of Commerce covers updates on air cargo carriers, air craft carrier capacity, rates routings and technology.

Air Cargo Carriers News | Journal of Commerce

Get the latest air cargo news and analysis with JOC. From carriers to trends, get insights into air freight news, air cargo shipping, and more.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Asia-Europe carriers dangle contract discounts before shippers: Xeneta

Large US truckload carriers, expecting more demand, rein in capacity cuts

Biofuel not the answer to shipping decarbonization: carriers