<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Caterpillar Inc. has decided to ship tractor parts with a joint venture operated byWallenius Lines o</div>

Caterpillar Inc. has decided to ship tractor parts with a joint venture operated byWallenius Lines o

<div>Caterpillar Inc. has decided to ship tractor parts with a joint venture operated byWallenius Lines of Sweden and Transroll Navegacao of Brazil.The Peoria, Ill.-based farm equipment manufacturer decided to use the carrier, known as Wallenius Transroll, after the carrier promised to add a port call to accommodate the shipper.The Wallenius Transroll venture uses one ship, a multipurpose 9,200- deadweig ht-ton vessel. Previously, it traveled between Baltimore and Santos, Brazil. Now it will make a stop at Norfolk, Va., to off-load parts destined for Caterpillar's Decatur, Ill., manufacturing facility.Caterpillar was looking for a carrier that could provide it with low ratesfrom...

Caterpillar Inc. has decided to ship tractor parts with a joint venture operated byWallenius Lines of Sweden and Transroll Navegacao of Brazil. The Peoria, Ill.-based farm equipment manufacturer decided to use the carrier, known as Wallenius Transroll, after the carrier promised to add a port call to accommodate the shipper.The Wallenius Transroll venture uses one ship, a multipurpose 9,200- deadweig ht-ton vessel. Previously, it traveled between Baltimore and Santos, Brazil. Now it will make a stop at Norfolk, Va., to off-load parts destined for Caterpillar's Decatur, Ill., manufacturing facility. Caterpillar was looking for a carrier that could provide it with low rates from Brazil yet maintain a steady service, according to Ken Burdick, international traffic manager for Caterpillar. Wallenius Transroll offered the lowest rate, he said, but didn't have the right port call. The parts being imported are called scraper bulls. They are rear assemblies for a type of tractor produced by Caterpillar. It is cheaper to construct the units in Brazil but they are oversized, Mr. Burdick explained, and need to be transported on widebody railcars or trucks. Rail transportation is preferable over a long distance because of rates, he said. Baltimore, because of clearance restrictions, cannot handle the cargo, he said. So Caterpillar wanted the carrier to stop at the Port of Hampton Roads next to Norfolk. Wallenius Transroll agreed to accommodate the shipper to win its business. The carrier will regularly deliver 40 units a month to Norfolk, where they will be transported to Decatur by Norfolk Southern Corp. The shipments total roughly 50,000 tons a year. "It's important to us to have, at a minimum, monthly service," Mr. Burdick said. "We'd like to see the frequency increase. We may supplement the service with other carriers to keep the pipeline going." Caterpillar has negotiations under way with other carriers, Mr. Burdick said. Production at Decatur relies heavily on steady delivery from Brazil, Mr. Burdick said, and Caterpillar wants to guard against any disruptions.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

CATERPILLAR GOES WITH WALLENIUS CARRIER TO ADD NORFOLK TO CALLS

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Although an agreement was reached on a greenhouse gas pricing measure, the Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting in London exposed deep divisions among member states on the way forward. </div>

Although an agreement was reached on a greenhouse gas pricing measure, the Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting in London exposed deep divisions among member states on the way forward.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Friday approved a proposal creating a global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing measure, but delegates at the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London were unable to agree on a “polluter pays” universal levy on all carbon emissions. In a debate described by attendees as “contentious and difficult,” the IMO managed to reach a compromise agreement on a two-tier pricing regulatory approach that will be finalized and adopted in October. “We are on track to decarbonize by around 2050, and this is another step in that process,” IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez told reporters, adding, however, that many challenges remain. Despite reaching an agreement on the GHG pricing measure, the MEPC meeting exposed deep divisions among member states, with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-pulls-out-of-imo-climate-talks-threatens-retaliation-for-emissions-fees-5980359">the US delegation walking out and threatening to retaliate</a> against any member state charging emissions fees on US ships. “My next step is to work with the member states in understanding further the concerns they have and how to bring them to the table for the next round of discussions, then we will move into the implementation side,” Dominguez said. Bryan Wood-Thomas, vice president for environmental policy at the World Shipping Council (WSC) and the WSC’s lead IMO representative, welcomed the GHG agreement as a crucial next step on the road to decarbonization. But he said there was considerable work ahead to ensure the shipping industry had the rules and guidance necessary to use the low- or zero-carbon fuels that would power the world’s fleet in future years. “These regulations are a critical starting point that gives us the needed regulatory structure to address this critical issue that impacts every corner of the globe,” Wood-Thomas said in a statement Friday. <h3>Two-tier regulatory system </h3>Wood-Thomas said the agreement created a two-tiered regulatory measure that would apply emission fees proportional to the GHG intensity of the energy used by a ship, while providing a mechanism that encourages the use of cleaner zero- and near-zero-emission fuels and energy sources. A GHG fuel standard and framework will be established that, if adopted, will require continuous reduction in GHG fuel intensity beginning in 2028, with ongoing reductions to reach a “base” target of 30% and a “direct compliance target” of 43% by 2035. Under the tier system for non-compliant ships, the Tier 2 price for emissions above the base target would be set at $380 per ton of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), with the possibility to bank or pool surpluses. Tier 1 for ships that are compliant with the base target but still higher than the direct compliance target would face a charge of $100 per ton of CO2. While that would constitute a pricing mechanism, Angie Farrag-Thibault, vice president for global transportation at US-based climate campaigner Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said the IMO had “missed a crucial opportunity to adopt a universal price on all shipping emissions.” But she was broadly positive about the measures agreed to at MEPC 83. “This framework allows for the shipping sector to steer away from fossil fuels, with full lifecycle emissions coverage, a greenhouse gas pricing mechanism and some provisions to support climate-vulnerable countries,” Farrag-Thibault said in a statement. An IMO “Net-Zero Fund” will be created to redistribute revenues from the pricing mechanism that will reward the use of zero or net-zero fuels and support “a just and equitable transition” for developing countries. <h3>Deal forces shipping to ‘continue polluting’ </h3>The lack of a universal pricing levy was greeted with deep disappointment by the Pacific islands’ delegation. During the vote to accept the framework agreement, the Pacific islands abstained, refusing to support a measure that did not include a universal carbon levy. “We cannot support an outcome that does not live up to the agreed strategy,” Manasseh Maelanga, the Solomon Islands’ minister of infrastructure development, said in a statement. “We will seek to improve this deal that, unchanged, will cause greater instability, and force shipping to continue polluting. That, we cannot accept.” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister of climate change, blamed Saudi Arabia, the US “and fossil fuel allies” that, he said, “blocked progress at every turn.” Another criticism of the agreement was that it places the IMO’s interim emissions reduction targets at risk. Anaïs Rios, shipping policy officer at marine non-governmental organization Seas At Risk, said IMO member states had failed to uphold even the minimum target agreed to just two years ago, with the first benchmark — cutting emissions by 20% by 2030 — looking increasingly out of reach. “This week’s outcome misses even the IMO’s baseline, leaving the 2030 decarbonization target dead in the water, with potential disastrous long-term impacts for people and the planet,” said Rios. Dominguez, however, insisted to reporters that the target of reducing GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 20%, while striving for 30% by 2030 compared with 2008 levels, would still be achieved. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) Friday approved a proposal creating a global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing measure, but delegates at the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in London were unable to agree on a “polluter pays” universal levy on all carbon emissions. In a debate described by attendees as “contentious and difficult,” the IMO managed to reach a compromise agreement on a two-tier pricing regulatory approach that will be finalized and adopted in October. “We are on track to decarbonize by around 2050, and this is another step in that process,” IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez told reporters, adding, however, that many challenges remain. Despite reaching an agreement on the GHG pricing measure, the MEPC meeting exposed deep divisions among member states, with the US delegation walking out and threatening to retaliate against any member state charging emissions fees on US ships. “My next step is to work with the member states in understanding further the concerns they have and how to bring them to the table for the next round of discussions, then we will move into the implementation side,” Dominguez said. Bryan Wood-Thomas, vice president for environmental policy at the World Shipping Council (WSC) and the WSC’s lead IMO representative, welcomed the GHG agreement as a crucial next step on the road to decarbonization. But he said there was considerable work ahead to ensure the shipping industry had the rules and guidance necessary to use the low- or zero-carbon fuels that would power the world’s fleet in future years. “These regulations are a critical starting point that gives us the needed regulatory structure to address this critical issue that impacts every corner of the globe,” Wood-Thomas said in a statement Friday. Two-tier regulatory system Wood-Thomas said the agreement created a two-tiered regulatory measure that would apply emission fees proportional to the GHG intensity of the energy used by a ship, while providing a mechanism that encourages the use of cleaner zero- and near-zero-emission fuels and energy sources. A GHG fuel standard and framework will be established that, if adopted, will require continuous reduction in GHG fuel intensity beginning in 2028, with ongoing reductions to reach a “base” target of 30% and a “direct compliance target” of 43% by 2035. Under the tier system for non-compliant ships, the Tier 2 price for emissions above the base target would be set at $380 per ton of CO2 equivalent (CO2e), with the possibility to bank or pool surpluses. Tier 1 for ships that are compliant with the base target but still higher than the direct compliance target would face a charge of $100 per ton of CO2. While that would constitute a pricing mechanism, Angie Farrag-Thibault, vice president for global transportation at US-based climate campaigner Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), said the IMO had “missed a crucial opportunity to adopt a universal price on all shipping emissions.” But she was broadly positive about the measures agreed to at MEPC 83. “This framework allows for the shipping sector to steer away from fossil fuels, with full lifecycle emissions coverage, a greenhouse gas pricing mechanism and some provisions to support climate-vulnerable countries,” Farrag-Thibault said in a statement. An IMO “Net-Zero Fund” will be created to redistribute revenues from the pricing mechanism that will reward the use of zero or net-zero fuels and support “a just and equitable transition” for developing countries. Deal forces shipping to ‘continue polluting’ The lack of a universal pricing levy was greeted with deep disappointment by the Pacific islands’ delegation. During the vote to accept the framework agreement, the Pacific islands abstained, refusing to support a measure that did not include a universal carbon levy. “We cannot support an outcome that does not live up to the agreed strategy,” Manasseh Maelanga, the Solomon Islands’ minister of infrastructure development, said in a statement. “We will seek to improve this deal that, unchanged, will cause greater instability, and force shipping to continue polluting. That, we cannot accept.” Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister of climate change, blamed Saudi Arabia, the US “and fossil fuel allies” that, he said, “blocked progress at every turn.” Another criticism of the agreement was that it places the IMO’s interim emissions reduction targets at risk. Anaïs Rios, shipping policy officer at marine non-governmental organization Seas At Risk, said IMO member states had failed to uphold even the minimum target agreed to just two years ago, with the first benchmark — cutting emissions by 20% by 2030 — looking increasingly out of reach. “This week’s outcome misses even the IMO’s baseline, leaving the 2030 decarbonization target dead in the water, with potential disastrous long-term impacts for people and the planet,” said Rios. Dominguez, however, insisted to reporters that the target of reducing GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 20%, while striving for 30% by 2030 compared with 2008 levels, would still be achieved. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Maritime

IMO sets out path to decarbonize shipping after ‘contentious’ climate talks

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">No matter one’s political viewpoint, the current tariff situation prevents importers and supply chain providers from making any medium- to long-term decisions related to investments or changes in sourcing patterns, writes Lars Jensen.</div>

No matter one’s political viewpoint, the current tariff situation prevents importers and supply chain providers from making any medium- to long-term decisions related to investments or changes in sourcing patterns, writes Lars Jensen.

<div class="phx-topic">To call the global trade dispute the US has launched in recent weeks “turbulent” would be the understatement of the century. Clearly, the root cause of the turmoil is the Trump administration’s political agenda and aspirations. Whether a political agenda is seen as problematic or not is a subjective question and does not have an objective answer. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5981079_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The purpose of the following analysis is not to evaluate whether any specific political aspiration is desirable or problematic — instead, it seeks to look at the actual actions the government is taking and assess how they have impacted the container supply chain. The obvious direct cause of the turmoil has been the US’ approach to tariffs. This has three different levels: the anticipation of tariffs, the magnitude of the tariffs and the frequency with which they are changed. The anticipation of tariffs led some importers to frontload cargo even before Donald Trump’s inauguration in January. This was possible for goods that were not time-sensitive and where the importer had excess storage capacity at low marginal cost. How big the impact was for tariffs alone is hard to gauge, though, as importers were also frontloading in anticipation of a potential longshore strike on the US East and Gulf coasts in January. Hence, an objective quantification based solely on tariffs is not possible — a claim mainly supported by anecdotal evidence at this point. The magnitude of the tariffs will likely be a long-term factor. For some tariffs, it will quite simply result in goods being more expensive for US consumers. Hence, the impact will be felt mainly as a reduction in demand for the goods in question, although the effect can be dampened either by some changes in sourcing to lower-tariffed countries or by consumers buying cheaper substitute goods when possible. In the short term, there is anecdotal evidence that suggests US consumers increased spending in the past week — advancing purchases they were expecting later in 2025 to get the goods before tariffs impact them. To the degree this is happening, it will lead to reduced cargo demand later in 2025. In the medium term, higher tariffs will lead to reduced demand simply due to the increase in prices. The current 125% tariff on China and 10% on everyone else approximately translates to a $5,000 annual increase in costs for the average US household. <h3>‘Reasonable certainty’ missing </h3>In the very long term, it is clear that the US government’s ambition is to see manufacturing moved to the US. Should this happen, it would of course reduce container import volumes, although there is no empirical evidence to suggest that this would be the outcome. Previous attempts at using tariffs in recent decades to move production back to the US from China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan did not lead to reshoring — instead, it led to a relocation to other non-US countries. One such example is the partial shift from China to Mexico given the tariffs introduced during the first Trump term. This did not materially lower container volumes, though, because the goods in Mexico are, to a large degree, made with Chinese and Asian components. And this leads to the third aspect of the tariff impact: the frequency of change. For importers to change their supply chain, sourcing and manufacturing, they must have a reasonable certainty of a stable trade environment going forward. The tariffs on China from the first Trump administration, combined with the uncertainty of the pandemic, led many to pursue a “China+1” strategy as that was considered more resilient. This is a slow, gradual shift playing out on a timeframe measured in years. Significant volumes shifted to countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand — countries that were suddenly saddled with reciprocal tariffs higher than 40% in April 2025. Merely 12 hours after the reciprocal tariffs went into effect, they were suspended for 90 days. This fits the previous pattern where Mexico and Canada received 25% tariffs only to have them suspended after three days and then reimplemented after 30 days. Sourcing patterns and supply chain setups are planned and modified on cycles measured in quarters and years — not in days. The high frequency of tariff changes de facto makes it impossible for importers to make any informed decisions regarding changes to their sourcing locations or to invest in new manufacturing locations. This also makes it impossible to decide whether to locate a manufacturing unit in the US, as the financial baseline for the decision is extremely uncertain if tariffs change as rapidly and as dramatically as they have so far. No matter one’s political preferences, the current situation prevents importers and supply chain providers from making any medium- to long-term decisions related to investments or changes in sourcing patterns. The only rational approach importers can take — and this is, to a large degree, what they are doing — is to maintain their current setup and make tactical day-to-day decisions, such as delaying cargo in the face of new tariffs in anticipation that said tariffs will be rapidly withdrawn or postponed. Contact Lars Jensen at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com">lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com</a>.</div>

To call the global trade dispute the US has launched in recent weeks “turbulent” would be the understatement of the century. Clearly, the root cause of the turmoil is the Trump administration’s political agenda and aspirations. Whether a political agenda is seen as problematic or not is a subjective question and does not have an objective answer. The purpose of the following analysis is not to evaluate whether any specific political aspiration is desirable or problematic — instead, it seeks to look at the actual actions the government is taking and assess how they have impacted the container supply chain. The obvious direct cause of the turmoil has been the US’ approach to tariffs. This has three different levels: the anticipation of tariffs, the magnitude of the tariffs and the frequency with which they are changed. The anticipation of tariffs led some importers to frontload cargo even before Donald Trump’s inauguration in January. This was possible for goods that were not time-sensitive and where the importer had excess storage capacity at low marginal cost. How big the impact was for tariffs alone is hard to gauge, though, as importers were also frontloading in anticipation of a potential longshore strike on the US East and Gulf coasts in January. Hence, an objective quantification based solely on tariffs is not possible — a claim mainly supported by anecdotal evidence at this point. The magnitude of the tariffs will likely be a long-term factor. For some tariffs, it will quite simply result in goods being more expensive for US consumers. Hence, the impact will be felt mainly as a reduction in demand for the goods in question, although the effect can be dampened either by some changes in sourcing to lower-tariffed countries or by consumers buying cheaper substitute goods when possible. In the short term, there is anecdotal evidence that suggests US consumers increased spending in the past week — advancing purchases they were expecting later in 2025 to get the goods before tariffs impact them. To the degree this is happening, it will lead to reduced cargo demand later in 2025. In the medium term, higher tariffs will lead to reduced demand simply due to the increase in prices. The current 125% tariff on China and 10% on everyone else approximately translates to a $5,000 annual increase in costs for the average US household. ‘Reasonable certainty’ missing In the very long term, it is clear that the US government’s ambition is to see manufacturing moved to the US. Should this happen, it would of course reduce container import volumes, although there is no empirical evidence to suggest that this would be the outcome. Previous attempts at using tariffs in recent decades to move production back to the US from China, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan did not lead to reshoring — instead, it led to a relocation to other non-US countries. One such example is the partial shift from China to Mexico given the tariffs introduced during the first Trump term. This did not materially lower container volumes, though, because the goods in Mexico are, to a large degree, made with Chinese and Asian components. And this leads to the third aspect of the tariff impact: the frequency of change. For importers to change their supply chain, sourcing and manufacturing, they must have a reasonable certainty of a stable trade environment going forward. The tariffs on China from the first Trump administration, combined with the uncertainty of the pandemic, led many to pursue a “China+1” strategy as that was considered more resilient. This is a slow, gradual shift playing out on a timeframe measured in years. Significant volumes shifted to countries such as Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand — countries that were suddenly saddled with reciprocal tariffs higher than 40% in April 2025. Merely 12 hours after the reciprocal tariffs went into effect, they were suspended for 90 days. This fits the previous pattern where Mexico and Canada received 25% tariffs only to have them suspended after three days and then reimplemented after 30 days. Sourcing patterns and supply chain setups are planned and modified on cycles measured in quarters and years — not in days. The high frequency of tariff changes de facto makes it impossible for importers to make any informed decisions regarding changes to their sourcing locations or to invest in new manufacturing locations. This also makes it impossible to decide whether to locate a manufacturing unit in the US, as the financial baseline for the decision is extremely uncertain if tariffs change as rapidly and as dramatically as they have so far. No matter one’s political preferences, the current situation prevents importers and supply chain providers from making any medium- to long-term decisions related to investments or changes in sourcing patterns. The only rational approach importers can take — and this is, to a large degree, what they are doing — is to maintain their current setup and make tactical day-to-day decisions, such as delaying cargo in the face of new tariffs in anticipation that said tariffs will be rapidly withdrawn or postponed. Contact Lars Jensen at lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com .

Supply chain

On-again, off-again tariffs will disrupt decision-making for importers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cargo theft in trucking and on the rails has been a problem for years, but it’s getting harder to combat as criminals become more sophisticated in their tactics.</div>

Cargo theft in trucking and on the rails has been a problem for years, but it’s getting harder to combat as criminals become more sophisticated in their tactics.

<div class="phx-topic">A bipartisan coalition of federal lawmakers has introduced legislation to combat incidents of theft from truck trailers and shipping containers that have exploded in frequency and sophistication in the last three years. The <a href="https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/corca_final.pdf">Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2025</a> (CORCA), sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada) along with several House members, seeks to strengthen laws and enhance coordination between law enforcement, shippers and carriers.The bill, introduced Thursday, would establish an “Organized Retail and Supply Chain Crime Coordination Center” within the Department of Homeland Security to share intelligence and coordinate federal investigations involving cargo and retail theft. “Organized theft rings deploy innovative tactics to pilfer goods,” Grassley said in a statement. “Our bill improves the federal response and deters future attacks on American retailers.” The legislation would broaden federal statutes to treat cargo theft as an interstate commerce crime, allowing prosecutors to aggregate losses from multiple thefts totaling at least $5,000 within a 12-month period into a felony charge. The measures address complaints from BNSF Railway and CSX Transportation that crimes are prosecuted on a “per container basis,” which the railroads say makes punishment weak. The bill would also expand the law to treat organized cargo theft as an underlying federal offense under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and allow law enforcement to seize vehicles, warehouses and financial proceeds connected to theft operations. RICO charges carry a sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison. This is the third attempt to pass CORCA after prior versions failed in 2022 and 2023, but it’s the first version to address cargo theft in trucking and rail. The more comprehensive bill has brought in support from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), Association of American Railroads (AAR), and the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Grassley is also the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which should expedite marking up the legislation and getting approval from both the Senate and House. <h3>Growing problem in rail </h3>The legislative push comes amid high-profile thefts on the rails over the last three years. In January and February, a rash of thefts in Arizona, California and New Mexico targeted ocean containers carrying limited-edition Nike shoes. Some of the thefts involved criminal groups sabotaging train brakes and signal systems to force emergency stops, according to investigators quoted by the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-23/freight-train-heists-targeting-nike-merchandise-are-probed-as-related">Los Angeles Times</a>. The criminals also employed surveillance teams to monitor law enforcement activity. In 2022, images of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-01-17/supply-chain-latest-union-pacific-battles-rail-freight-theft-in-l-a">plundered containers</a> outside Union Pacific Railroad’s Los Angeles Terminal Center made national headlines. Last fall, videos of thieves in Chicago stealing from a Union Pacific train being interchanged with Norfolk Southern Railway also made national headlines. News helicopter images showed criminals breaching specific containers while ignoring others, suggesting insider knowledge. Six individuals were detained, but only <a href="https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicago-crime-derrick-weathers-lemar-hollingsworth-charges-freight-train-looting-south-austin-police-say/15424077/">two were charged with local misdemeanors</a> rather than federal charges. “This alarming trend affects every industry, including the nation’s largest railroads, which experienced a 40% spike in cargo theft last year,” AAR CEO Ian Jeffries said in a statement. “Disrupting these organized crime networks requires a unified, federally led response.” BNSF CEO Katie Farmer said at the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tpm25-bnsf-ceo-says-fighting-cargo-theft-requires-collective-effort-5956508">Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference</a> in March that arrests do not serve as a deterrence. “We are arresting people on Monday and seeing them again on Friday,” Farmer said. “We can’t solve this alone.” <h3>Cargo theft in trucking </h3>In trucking, cargo thieves have targeted freight brokers. Criminals are impersonating trucking companies to get loads using US Department of Transportation (USDOT) registration numbers, then booking the load with an unsuspecting driver. The cargo will be diverted to an alternate destination where it is unloaded and vanishes. The driver doesn’t get paid, the shipper loses its cargo and the broker must mend a fractured relationship. “This trend raises costs for consumers and puts drivers in danger,” ATA CEO Chris Spear said in a statement. “Improved federal coordination and enforcement is essential to protecting the integrity of freight transportation.” The trucking crimes are as equally sophisticated as the rail crimes. Criminals are buying real USDOT numbers off companies going out of business, then spoof the email address and phone number of real employees of US freight brokers. The email signatures, logos, and rate confirmation sheets sent to the unsuspecting driver are virtually identical to the real thing. It may be difficult to truly reduce the number of crimes, even if the CORCA bill becomes law, as many of the ringleaders are based overseas, according to cargo theft experts. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

A bipartisan coalition of federal lawmakers has introduced legislation to combat incidents of theft from truck trailers and shipping containers that have exploded in frequency and sophistication in the last three years. The Combating Organized Retail Crime Act of 2025 (CORCA), sponsored by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada) along with several House members, seeks to strengthen laws and enhance coordination between law enforcement, shippers and carriers. The bill, introduced Thursday, would establish an “Organized Retail and Supply Chain Crime Coordination Center” within the Department of Homeland Security to share intelligence and coordinate federal investigations involving cargo and retail theft. “Organized theft rings deploy innovative tactics to pilfer goods,” Grassley said in a statement. “Our bill improves the federal response and deters future attacks on American retailers.” The legislation would broaden federal statutes to treat cargo theft as an interstate commerce crime, allowing prosecutors to aggregate losses from multiple thefts totaling at least $5,000 within a 12-month period into a felony charge. The measures address complaints from BNSF Railway and CSX Transportation that crimes are prosecuted on a “per container basis,” which the railroads say makes punishment weak. The bill would also expand the law to treat organized cargo theft as an underlying federal offense under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and allow law enforcement to seize vehicles, warehouses and financial proceeds connected to theft operations. RICO charges carry a sentence of up to 20 years in federal prison. This is the third attempt to pass CORCA after prior versions failed in 2022 and 2023, but it’s the first version to address cargo theft in trucking and rail. The more comprehensive bill has brought in support from the American Trucking Associations (ATA), Association of American Railroads (AAR), and the Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). Grassley is also the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which should expedite marking up the legislation and getting approval from both the Senate and House. Growing problem in rail The legislative push comes amid high-profile thefts on the rails over the last three years. In January and February, a rash of thefts in Arizona, California and New Mexico targeted ocean containers carrying limited-edition Nike shoes. Some of the thefts involved criminal groups sabotaging train brakes and signal systems to force emergency stops, according to investigators quoted by the Los Angeles Times . The criminals also employed surveillance teams to monitor law enforcement activity. In 2022, images of plundered containers outside Union Pacific Railroad’s Los Angeles Terminal Center made national headlines. Last fall, videos of thieves in Chicago stealing from a Union Pacific train being interchanged with Norfolk Southern Railway also made national headlines. News helicopter images showed criminals breaching specific containers while ignoring others, suggesting insider knowledge. Six individuals were detained, but only two were charged with local misdemeanors rather than federal charges. “This alarming trend affects every industry, including the nation’s largest railroads, which experienced a 40% spike in cargo theft last year,” AAR CEO Ian Jeffries said in a statement. “Disrupting these organized crime networks requires a unified, federally led response.” BNSF CEO Katie Farmer said at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference in March that arrests do not serve as a deterrence. “We are arresting people on Monday and seeing them again on Friday,” Farmer said. “We can’t solve this alone.” Cargo theft in trucking In trucking, cargo thieves have targeted freight brokers. Criminals are impersonating trucking companies to get loads using US Department of Transportation (USDOT) registration numbers, then booking the load with an unsuspecting driver. The cargo will be diverted to an alternate destination where it is unloaded and vanishes. The driver doesn’t get paid, the shipper loses its cargo and the broker must mend a fractured relationship. “This trend raises costs for consumers and puts drivers in danger,” ATA CEO Chris Spear said in a statement. “Improved federal coordination and enforcement is essential to protecting the integrity of freight transportation.” The trucking crimes are as equally sophisticated as the rail crimes. Criminals are buying real USDOT numbers off companies going out of business, then spoof the email address and phone number of real employees of US freight brokers. The email signatures, logos, and rate confirmation sheets sent to the unsuspecting driver are virtually identical to the real thing. It may be difficult to truly reduce the number of crimes, even if the CORCA bill becomes law, as many of the ringleaders are based overseas, according to cargo theft experts. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Truck brokers

North-American rail

Congress makes fresh attempt to target cargo theft in US

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">From an international supply chain perspective, the plan that could hit Chinese-made and -operated ships with fees in excess of $1 million per US port call could have impacts as profound as the current tariff controversy.</div>

From an international supply chain perspective, the plan that could hit Chinese-made and -operated ships with fees in excess of $1 million per US port call could have impacts as profound as the current tariff controversy.

<div class="phx-topic">Somewhat — and maybe temporarily — sidelined amid the current tariff maelstrom was the recent <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">announcement by the US Trade Representative (USTR) regarding Chinese-manufactured ocean vessels</a> and its proposed remedy for container lines to pay over $1 million per US port call. Given that the plan was roundly denounced <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/plan-to-tax-chinese-ships-turned-maritime-malaise-into-brainstorming-session-5971753">during recent hearings on the topic</a>, the chances are fairly good that when the final plan rolls out, perhaps later this month, it will see some significant changes. But given the Trump administration’s tariff posture and the current animosity versus China, things could easily go the other way. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5981078_0.1.jpg"></img></div>From an international supply chain perspective, the proposed charges could have impacts as profound as the current tariff controversies. Three main impacts are evident: (1) increased costs resulting from the pass-through of port fees to importers; (2) consolidation of port calls and elimination of calls at secondary ports; and (3) diversion of freight to adjacent non-US ports such as Vancouver/Prince Rupert and Halifax in Canada and Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Item #1 is somewhat of a no-brainer, in that the additional costs will certainly be passed along. Even though potentially significant, they stand to be a rounding error given the scope of the tariffs, assuming they remain in place. Item #2 betrays a certain lack of understanding of how things work on the part of the USTR. If the plan remains “as is,” then the bypassing of secondary ports is a near-certainty, as many of these do not have the volume to justify the additional port fee expense. However, from an intermodal perspective, this does not represent a potential bonanza, as most of the resulting hauls would be relatively short-haul north-south moves for which the system is not particularly well-suited. Most likely, the moves would be long-haul drays — although the potential for transloading to feeder vessels would be another alternative. From a structural perspective, this problem would be easily solved by a change in the way the rule is written, such that only the first US port of call incurs a fee. This might be a larger number than currently envisioned, but subsequent US ports of call by the same vessel on the same voyage would not incur a fee. This would eliminate the perverting effects of the fees on the network structure. That leaves #3, the last item, which involves potential diversion of imports away from US ports of entry. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has proposed a solution that involves a border fee on containers entering the US overland from Canada and Mexico to “level out” the playing field. However, even if such a fee is not included in the revisions, it’s not clear how much volume will actually be diverted. A back-of-the-envelope analysis would be to take the fee incurred in calling at Los Angeles, for instance, and divide the fee among all the containers being discharged. But there is no such requirement for the fee to be evenly spread among all the discharged boxes. <h3>Innocent bystanders ‘caught in the crossfire’ </h3>Another approach would be for the carrier to skew the fees more toward local traffic, for which no alternative to Los Angeles exists, and to hold down the fees on the ultra-competitive inland point intermodal traffic for which abundant alternatives are available. Once the decision is made to have a port call in LA to serve the large amount of local traffic, then the fee becomes, in effect, a “sunk cost.” The discharge of additional inland volume doesn’t change the fee one cent, and even if the inland volume picks up only a small slice of the pie, it will still help reduce the overall fee per box. The same calculus applies up north. Over the last six months, about 55% of the TEUs landing in the US Pacific Northwest did not exit the region on rail. This works out to an average of about 65,000 TEUs per month. Add in the additional volume that would be generated by eliminating the call at Oakland and this would likely be enough volume to warrant a port call at Sea-Tac. Again, once that decision is made, then it makes sense to pull as much volume as possible into each call. This would incentivize carriers to price the inland volume competitively so that they can pick up at least some of the cost. None of this should be interpreted to mean that the proposed changes, even if modified in a sensible manner, won’t be hugely disruptive. The problem will be compounded by the continued uncertainty engendered by the administration’s “ready, fire, aim” approach, with subsequent rollbacks, modifications and on-the-fly changes made on short notice. This is making a near-term recession more likely by the day, as investment and planning efforts are frozen, waiting for clarity that will most likely never arrive, because a deal is never final. This will all eventually get sorted out. But in the meantime, huge damage will be done and many innocent bystanders, both in the US and overseas, will be caught in the crossfire. Contact Larry Gross at <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/lgross@intermodalindepth.com">lgross@intermodalindepth.com</a>.</div>

Somewhat — and maybe temporarily — sidelined amid the current tariff maelstrom was the recent announcement by the US Trade Representative (USTR) regarding Chinese-manufactured ocean vessels and its proposed remedy for container lines to pay over $1 million per US port call. Given that the plan was roundly denounced during recent hearings on the topic , the chances are fairly good that when the final plan rolls out, perhaps later this month, it will see some significant changes. But given the Trump administration’s tariff posture and the current animosity versus China, things could easily go the other way. From an international supply chain perspective, the proposed charges could have impacts as profound as the current tariff controversies. Three main impacts are evident: (1) increased costs resulting from the pass-through of port fees to importers; (2) consolidation of port calls and elimination of calls at secondary ports; and (3) diversion of freight to adjacent non-US ports such as Vancouver/Prince Rupert and Halifax in Canada and Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Item #1 is somewhat of a no-brainer, in that the additional costs will certainly be passed along. Even though potentially significant, they stand to be a rounding error given the scope of the tariffs, assuming they remain in place. Item #2 betrays a certain lack of understanding of how things work on the part of the USTR. If the plan remains “as is,” then the bypassing of secondary ports is a near-certainty, as many of these do not have the volume to justify the additional port fee expense. However, from an intermodal perspective, this does not represent a potential bonanza, as most of the resulting hauls would be relatively short-haul north-south moves for which the system is not particularly well-suited. Most likely, the moves would be long-haul drays — although the potential for transloading to feeder vessels would be another alternative. From a structural perspective, this problem would be easily solved by a change in the way the rule is written, such that only the first US port of call incurs a fee. This might be a larger number than currently envisioned, but subsequent US ports of call by the same vessel on the same voyage would not incur a fee. This would eliminate the perverting effects of the fees on the network structure. That leaves #3, the last item, which involves potential diversion of imports away from US ports of entry. The International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) has proposed a solution that involves a border fee on containers entering the US overland from Canada and Mexico to “level out” the playing field. However, even if such a fee is not included in the revisions, it’s not clear how much volume will actually be diverted. A back-of-the-envelope analysis would be to take the fee incurred in calling at Los Angeles, for instance, and divide the fee among all the containers being discharged. But there is no such requirement for the fee to be evenly spread among all the discharged boxes. Innocent bystanders ‘caught in the crossfire’ Another approach would be for the carrier to skew the fees more toward local traffic, for which no alternative to Los Angeles exists, and to hold down the fees on the ultra-competitive inland point intermodal traffic for which abundant alternatives are available. Once the decision is made to have a port call in LA to serve the large amount of local traffic, then the fee becomes, in effect, a “sunk cost.” The discharge of additional inland volume doesn’t change the fee one cent, and even if the inland volume picks up only a small slice of the pie, it will still help reduce the overall fee per box. The same calculus applies up north. Over the last six months, about 55% of the TEUs landing in the US Pacific Northwest did not exit the region on rail. This works out to an average of about 65,000 TEUs per month. Add in the additional volume that would be generated by eliminating the call at Oakland and this would likely be enough volume to warrant a port call at Sea-Tac. Again, once that decision is made, then it makes sense to pull as much volume as possible into each call. This would incentivize carriers to price the inland volume competitively so that they can pick up at least some of the cost. None of this should be interpreted to mean that the proposed changes, even if modified in a sensible manner, won’t be hugely disruptive. The problem will be compounded by the continued uncertainty engendered by the administration’s “ready, fire, aim” approach, with subsequent rollbacks, modifications and on-the-fly changes made on short notice. This is making a near-term recession more likely by the day, as investment and planning efforts are frozen, waiting for clarity that will most likely never arrive, because a deal is never final. This will all eventually get sorted out. But in the meantime, huge damage will be done and many innocent bystanders, both in the US and overseas, will be caught in the crossfire. Contact Larry Gross at lgross@intermodalindepth.com .

North American ports

USTR port fee proposal would open a ‘second front’ in trade war

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">First-quarter carrier earnings are likely to be buoyed by high rates and strong demand that has spilled over from 2024, but tariffs, slowing volume and excess capacity are darkening the outlook for the rest of the year.</div>

First-quarter carrier earnings are likely to be buoyed by high rates and strong demand that has spilled over from 2024, but tariffs, slowing volume and excess capacity are darkening the outlook for the rest of the year.

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean carriers will report a strong first quarter due to elevated rates on the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe trades that were significantly higher compared with the same period last year, analysts say. But the outlook for the rest of the year has become clouded given the impact of US tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, slowing demand and rising capacity in an oversupplied container shipping market. Carriers will report their first-quarter financial results over the next few weeks, with the earnings likely to be buoyed by strong demand on the trans-Pacific and high rates on both the Asia-US and Asia-Europe trade lanes. That was evident in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/cosco-on-course-for-big-jump-in-first-quarter-net-profit-5979846">Cosco Shipping Holdings’ estimated first-quarter earnings</a> released this week that show a highly profitable result. It looks to be downhill from here, however. J.P. Morgan analysts are expecting full-year profitability guidance cuts to be made by carriers “across the board” based on a weakening demand outlook and the backdrop of US tariffs. “The high fourth-quarter 2024 freight rate will have supported a solid start of the year for EBIT [earnings before interest and taxes], but the environment has rapidly deteriorated throughout the first quarter, with the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index down 18% quarter over quarter and expected market volume growth of around 3%,” the bank’s transportation analysts wrote in a market update this week. Tariff uncertainty has already caused cargo bookings on vessels leaving Asia for the US over the next few weeks to plummet as <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/tariff-uncertainty-causes-plunge-in-us-cargo-bookings-at-asia-load-ports-5980498">importers place a hold on China factory orders</a> until greater clarity emerges. Befitting the chaos that has marked the on-again, off-again nature of the tariff rollout, President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced he was lowering the widely varied “reciprocal” tariffs on all countries — except China — to a 10% baseline for 90 days. And in what has become a near-daily escalation of the trade war with Beijing, Trump said he was again raising tariffs on goods imported from China, this time to 125%. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="43ce164b-7c51-4602-89a9-1ad80311460a"></dynamic-object></div>The wait-and-see approach from US importers on the eastbound trans-Pacific has as yet not caused any significant movement among various spot rate indexes. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows average spot rates from China to the US West Coast at $2,886 per FEU as of Thursday, essentially flat since a general rate increase April 1. The Asia-US East Coast rate has also been flat since April 1 at $3,861/FEU. It was a weaker picture on China-North Europe where the rates have been falling since late December and are down 55% at $2,250/FEU; China-Mediterranean rates have followed a similar path, down 50% since Dec. 31 at $2,955/FEU. <h3>Recession threat looms </h3>Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis CEO Alan Murphy said when tariffs, demand and supply were considered, the problem was whether the world was heading into a wider recession and how that will impact the container shipping market. “The baseline outlook for world demand is for growth of around 3.2%, matching the GDP outlook, but that was from before the tariff war was launched this past week,” Murphy said. “Whether the tariff war becomes as severe as the financial crisis — when global demand fell 9% year over year — is still entirely unknown, but even if the impact was half of the financial crisis, this would tip the global supply/demand balance away from a strong 2025 peak and into overcapacity,” he added. The vessel capacity on order is now at 28% of the current fleet at 8.6 million TEUs, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Demolition data from Sea-web shows just 2,379 TEUs of capacity are set to be scrapped this year compared with more than 91,000 TEUs in 2024. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="5f4d2d49-843e-4e72-a473-c1076ca7264e"></dynamic-object></div>Alphaliner noted in its newsletter this week that demand for all types of ships was robust amid sustained cargo volumes on various trades despite container shipping being in its traditional slack season. “In late March, not a single ship larger than 18,000 TEUs was idle, and only three vessels of the second-biggest size class — 12,500 TEUs — were commercially inactive,” Alphaliner noted. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Ocean carriers will report a strong first quarter due to elevated rates on the trans-Pacific and Asia-Europe trades that were significantly higher compared with the same period last year, analysts say. But the outlook for the rest of the year has become clouded given the impact of US tariffs, retaliatory tariffs, slowing demand and rising capacity in an oversupplied container shipping market. Carriers will report their first-quarter financial results over the next few weeks, with the earnings likely to be buoyed by strong demand on the trans-Pacific and high rates on both the Asia-US and Asia-Europe trade lanes. That was evident in Cosco Shipping Holdings’ estimated first-quarter earnings released this week that show a highly profitable result. It looks to be downhill from here, however. J.P. Morgan analysts are expecting full-year profitability guidance cuts to be made by carriers “across the board” based on a weakening demand outlook and the backdrop of US tariffs. “The high fourth-quarter 2024 freight rate will have supported a solid start of the year for EBIT [earnings before interest and taxes], but the environment has rapidly deteriorated throughout the first quarter, with the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index down 18% quarter over quarter and expected market volume growth of around 3%,” the bank’s transportation analysts wrote in a market update this week. Tariff uncertainty has already caused cargo bookings on vessels leaving Asia for the US over the next few weeks to plummet as importers place a hold on China factory orders until greater clarity emerges. Befitting the chaos that has marked the on-again, off-again nature of the tariff rollout, President Donald Trump on Wednesday announced he was lowering the widely varied “reciprocal” tariffs on all countries — except China — to a 10% baseline for 90 days. And in what has become a near-daily escalation of the trade war with Beijing, Trump said he was again raising tariffs on goods imported from China, this time to 125%. The wait-and-see approach from US importers on the eastbound trans-Pacific has as yet not caused any significant movement among various spot rate indexes. Data from rate benchmarking platform Xeneta shows average spot rates from China to the US West Coast at $2,886 per FEU as of Thursday, essentially flat since a general rate increase April 1. The Asia-US East Coast rate has also been flat since April 1 at $3,861/FEU. It was a weaker picture on China-North Europe where the rates have been falling since late December and are down 55% at $2,250/FEU; China-Mediterranean rates have followed a similar path, down 50% since Dec. 31 at $2,955/FEU. Recession threat looms Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis CEO Alan Murphy said when tariffs, demand and supply were considered, the problem was whether the world was heading into a wider recession and how that will impact the container shipping market. “The baseline outlook for world demand is for growth of around 3.2%, matching the GDP outlook, but that was from before the tariff war was launched this past week,” Murphy said. “Whether the tariff war becomes as severe as the financial crisis — when global demand fell 9% year over year — is still entirely unknown, but even if the impact was half of the financial crisis, this would tip the global supply/demand balance away from a strong 2025 peak and into overcapacity,” he added. The vessel capacity on order is now at 28% of the current fleet at 8.6 million TEUs, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Demolition data from Sea-web shows just 2,379 TEUs of capacity are set to be scrapped this year compared with more than 91,000 TEUs in 2024. Alphaliner noted in its newsletter this week that demand for all types of ships was robust amid sustained cargo volumes on various trades despite container shipping being in its traditional slack season. “In late March, not a single ship larger than 18,000 TEUs was idle, and only three vessels of the second-biggest size class — 12,500 TEUs — were commercially inactive,” Alphaliner noted. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

US tariffs could help undo solid start to 2025 for ocean carriers

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!

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

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

Discover the news and analysis of supply chain strategies, sourcing and trends covered by the Journal of Commerce. Comprehensive coverage includes customs, trade news, transport news and the latest information about trade regulations.

Stay informed with the latest regulation news and trade updates. Explore comprehensive transportation news and trade regulations today.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News | Journal of Commerce

The Journal of Commerce’s supply chain news and analysis impacting the management of end-to-end supply chains reports on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends, sourcing, customs certification and contract logistics. Supply chain news coverage also delves into refrigerated shipping advancements and management of inventory status, regulatory updates and government funding projects.

Our logistics technology news include logistics technology startups, solutions, and the impact of technology on logistics and supply chain management.

Logistics Technology News | Journal of Commerce

Logistics Technology News

A thorough cool cargoes news by Journal of Commerce. Learn about the latest trends in refrigerated cargo transportation, weight capacity, technology, and more.

Cool Cargo News | Journal of Commerce

Cool Cargo News

Journal of Commerce keeps you informed on the latest last mile news with comprehensive coverage of carriers, logistics, and last mile transportation solutions.

Last Mile News | Journal of Commerce

Last Mile News

Discover the latest industrial real estate news and trends. Covering projects, real estate supply chain, logistics, pricing, cross dock facilities, and more.

Industrial Real Estate News | Journal of Commerce

Industrial Real Estate News

Stay updated on supply chain strategies, cargo visibility, inventory trends and more with our comprehensive supply chain news and analysis.

Latest News

Attend Inland25

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

More News & Analysis

IMO sets out path to decarbonize shipping after ‘contentious’ climate talks

On-again, off-again tariffs will disrupt decision-making for importers

Congress makes fresh attempt to target cargo theft in US