<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A Chinese nonferrous metals trade fair under way here is expected to meet sales expectations, a spok</div>

A Chinese nonferrous metals trade fair under way here is expected to meet sales expectations, a spok

<div>A Chinese nonferrous metals trade fair under way here is expected to meet sales expectations, a spokesman said, but that will probably not lift the gloom surrounding the industry."Some items are good," fair official Xun Gao said Monday. "Ferro alloys, like ferro tungsten and ferro silicon, were very weak last year, but this year we have lots of orders."China's devaluation last December is encouraging exports, said Mr. Xun, president's assistant at China National Nonferrous Metals Import/Export Corp., or CNIEC. That state-run entity sponsors the Hong Kong fair.Low prices, however, are discouraging sales of tungsten, antimony, aluminum, copper and tin ingot....

A Chinese nonferrous metals trade fair under way here is expected to meet sales expectations, a spokesman said, but that will probably not lift the gloom surrounding the industry. "Some items are good," fair official Xun Gao said Monday. "Ferro alloys, like ferro tungsten and ferro silicon, were very weak last year, but this year we have lots of orders."China's devaluation last December is encouraging exports, said Mr. Xun, president's assistant at China National Nonferrous Metals Import/Export Corp., or CNIEC. That state-run entity sponsors the Hong Kong fair. Low prices, however, are discouraging sales of tungsten, antimony, aluminum, copper and tin ingot. "The Guangxi (province) branch does not want to sell tin ingot here," Mr. Xun told The Journal of Commerce. The branch, representing a primary production area, prefers to save its limited export quota in hopes of higher prices. Mr. Xun said the biggest problem is that exports of the metals with the strongest prices, copper and aluminum, are banned to ease domestic shortages. The target for the current fair, the sixth annual event, is US$70 million to US$80 million. That is well below last year's total of US$110 million. The Chinese nonferrous industry as a whole has been hit hard by the austerity program started in late 1988 to cool off an overheated economy. Exports fell US$80 million last year to US$450 million. One way to overcome some of the obstacles is to engage in compensation trade, in which payment for imported raw materials is taken in exports of processed goods. "We get alumina from Australia or Canada, for example, and copper concentrate from Chile or other South American countries," Mr. Xun said. ''Then we export aluminum ingots and copper rods." This allows CNIEC to get around the ban on aluminum ingot exports and beat the shortage of foreign exchange. A portion of the exports even generates much-needed hard currency. Mr. Xun also sees some hope for overcoming the chronic problems of late deliveries and unauthorized exports, known as "parallel goods." CNIEC now sometimes stocks materials in its own warehouse to guarantee delivery. "We have our own corporation in Japan that has ferro-silicon," Mr. Xun said. "Japanese buyers can buy direct from our warehouse. They get timely delivery and can see the quality of the goods." Control of parallel goods is much better, he said, because the Ministry of Foreign Relations and Trade now allows only CNIEC and China National Minerals & Metals Import/Export Corp. to handle high-priority items such as tungsten and antimony. "And only the head offices (in Beijing) can sign contracts," Mr. Xun added. Special economic zones such as Shenzhen, a prime culprit in exports of parallel goods, no longer receive quotas for exports of scarce nonferrous metals, and trade officials in large cities such as Shanghai are no longer permitted to issue export licenses for them.

Maritime

CHINA'S OUTLOOK FOR EXPORTS OF METALS DIM LOW PRICES SEEN HURTING SALES

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The poor operating conditions look set to continue this year, likely keeping container handling numbers under pressure at Europe’s third-largest port.</div>

The poor operating conditions look set to continue this year, likely keeping container handling numbers under pressure at Europe’s third-largest port.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Geopolitical issues and a slowdown in the German economy held back container throughput at the Port of Hamburg in 2024, with overall volumes at the gateway growing just 0.9% to 7.8 million TEUs. Operating conditions are unlikely to improve this year, with the port warning that throughput figures will be influenced by a “highly volatile” global situation and the continued weakening of the German economy. “The annual result highlights the Port of Hamburg’s resilience in a challenging market environment,” Axel Mattern, a member of the executive board at Port of Hamburg Marketing, said in a statement Monday. The 2024 volumes left the German hub firmly in third place in European container port rankings behind Rotterdam’s 13.8 million TEUs and Antwerp-Bruges’ volume of 13.5 million TEUs last year. China remains Hamburg’s largest trading nation, with volume edging up 0.7% year over year to 2.2 million TEUs, while trade with the US reached a record 685,000 TEUs, up 5% compared with 2023. But the impact of longer transit times as ships avoid the Red Sea was causing route changes and vessel diversions that are being felt acutely by Hamburg, which sits at the northernmost end of North Europe port rotations. As a result, the port last year reported fewer calls of megamax ships of 23,000 TEUs and above, which are primarily used on the Asia-North Europe trade lane. Still, container exchanges — the number of containers offloaded and loaded during a port call — increased by more than 20% at Hamburg, with an average of 10,000 TEUs per megamax visit. Hamburg reported a 2.5% year-over-year increase in rail traffic with 2.6 million TEUs transported in and out of the port during 2024, allowing rail to hold on to its 50.2% modal share of container transport. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Geopolitical issues and a slowdown in the German economy held back container throughput at the Port of Hamburg in 2024, with overall volumes at the gateway growing just 0.9% to 7.8 million TEUs. Operating conditions are unlikely to improve this year, with the port warning that throughput figures will be influenced by a “highly volatile” global situation and the continued weakening of the German economy. “The annual result highlights the Port of Hamburg’s resilience in a challenging market environment,” Axel Mattern, a member of the executive board at Port of Hamburg Marketing, said in a statement Monday. The 2024 volumes left the German hub firmly in third place in European container port rankings behind Rotterdam’s 13.8 million TEUs and Antwerp-Bruges’ volume of 13.5 million TEUs last year. China remains Hamburg’s largest trading nation, with volume edging up 0.7% year over year to 2.2 million TEUs, while trade with the US reached a record 685,000 TEUs, up 5% compared with 2023. But the impact of longer transit times as ships avoid the Red Sea was causing route changes and vessel diversions that are being felt acutely by Hamburg, which sits at the northernmost end of North Europe port rotations. As a result, the port last year reported fewer calls of megamax ships of 23,000 TEUs and above, which are primarily used on the Asia-North Europe trade lane. Still, container exchanges — the number of containers offloaded and loaded during a port call — increased by more than 20% at Hamburg, with an average of 10,000 TEUs per megamax visit. Hamburg reported a 2.5% year-over-year increase in rail traffic with 2.6 million TEUs transported in and out of the port during 2024, allowing rail to hold on to its 50.2% modal share of container transport. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Asia-Europe

Geopolitics, weak German economy slowed Hamburg’s 2024 volume growth

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

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

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

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

Forwarding

Trans-Pacific

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

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

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

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

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

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

International ports

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

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A dispute over severance pay compensation has resulted in a series of walkouts by dockworkers at Rotterdam’s Delta II terminal over the past month, severely disrupting the handling of deep-sea vessels, regional feeder ship calls and inland-bound cargo.</div>

A dispute over severance pay compensation has resulted in a series of walkouts by dockworkers at Rotterdam’s Delta II terminal over the past month, severely disrupting the handling of deep-sea vessels, regional feeder ship calls and inland-bound cargo.

<div class="phx-topic"> Correction: The dispute is affecting Hutchison Ports’ Delta II terminal and not Hutchison Ports’ ECT Delta as first stated.A call by Dutch union FNV Havens for ports in Europe to refuse to handle ships diverted from Rotterdam’s Hutchison Ports-owned Delta II terminal has raised the specter of cross-border “solidarity strikes” that the shipping industry is watching closely. Intermittent strike action has taken place this month at the Rotterdam terminal. No reports have yet been received of dockworkers elsewhere refusing to handle ships diverted from the terminal, but Tim Seifert, a spokesman for Delta II customer Hapag-Lloyd, said the carrier was monitoring the situation. “It is a bit early to evaluate the precise impact of the strike [activity],” Seifert told the Journal of Commerce this week. “We are analyzing the situation and looking at a case-by-case basis to see whether it creates sense to deviate vessels or adjust rotations and hope that the parties involved will quickly reach an agreement in their negotiations.” A spokesperson for Hutchison Ports said labor action was ongoing, but “in the meantime ships are being handled.” The FNV dispute over severance pay compensation has resulted in a series of walkouts by dockworkers at the Delta II terminal in the Maasvlakte area over the past month, severely disrupting the handling of deep-sea vessels, regional feeder ship calls and inland-bound cargo. “This compensation is a crucial part of the collective labor agreement that we made on Jan. 30,” Asmae Hajjari, union leader of FNV Havens, said in a statement this week. “The fact that the shareholder of Hutchison Ports now suddenly refuses to provide this guarantee is unacceptable to us.” Frustrated by the response from the terminal owner, the union is attempting to mobilize support in the region against Hutchison Ports via the European Transport Federation (ETF). “The union has called on its European colleagues to show solidarity with the dock workers in the port of Rotterdam,” FNV said in the statement. “If ships destined for Hutchison {Delta II] divert to other ports, these ports have been called upon not to handle these ships because of contaminated work.” <h3>Last-minute port omissions </h3>Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said carriers were making “last-minute omissions” of Rotterdam but he had not seen proof of solidarity strikes in Europe based on the FNV call, adding that “it will be pretty disastrous” if such strikes were held. “At a point where record cargo volumes from Asia are reaching the terminals of Europe, the timing of rolling strikes in container terminals across France and now also at the Rotterdam terminal is really bad,” Sand said. Bart Kuipers, port economist at the Erasmus Centre for Urban, Port and Transport Economics in Rotterdam, said a coordinated approach by European unions was rare and usually related to a European policy measure, a global problem or a problem with a particular company, such as the Hutchison Ports terminal. “What is quite normal is that port unions in other ports show their solidarity, so delegations from all over the world can show up at meetings in a certain port,” Kuipers told the Journal of Commerce Friday, adding that port unions were organized in a global network and that Hajjari, the leader of the Rotterdam union, was well known in the US. Data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) shows China-to-North Europe volumes in December increased 17.6% year over year to a one-month record of 835,000 TEUs. Those containers are currently arriving at Northern European ports, and combined with the bad weather and dockworker strikes, are contributing to congestion. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="cb6106a3-ac77-4137-8600-533eeab9fd4f"></dynamic-object></div>Hanna Stelzel, director of containers at the Port of Rotterdam, said the end of December and the beginning of January were congested due to holiday closures and adverse weather conditions, including a prolonged period of heavy fog. “Provided that weather conditions remain stable, we anticipate a gradual improvement in the weather-related situation,” she said, although acknowledging the ratio of waiting ships to the number of ships in the port remained high. The average waiting time at Rotterdam was about 1.2 days on Feb. 15, with eight vessels waiting at anchorage to enter the port, down from 16 on Jan. 18, according to data from S&amp;P Global Commodity Insights. S&amp;P Global is the parent of Journal of Commerce. Kuehne + Nagel said on its SeaExplorer visibility platform that yard congestion in Rotterdam was high at 90% and berths were ”fully occupied for the next months.” Rotterdam World Gateway has stopped accepting empty containers into its yard as a precautionary measure, SeaExplorer noted. Rotterdam handled a total of 13.8 million TEUs in 2024, a 2.8% increase year over year, as rising wages and falling inflation led to increased demand for consumer goods and food, the port said in a statement Friday. <h3>Emergency measures at Antwerp </h3>The bottlenecks in Rotterdam and rolling strikes in French ports through February are adding to the volume being diverted to Antwerp-Bruges, contributing to rising congestion at Europe’s second-largest hub. Overflowing container yards after persistently high import volume from Asia have forced at least one terminal – Antwerp Gateway – to implement emergency measures to clear the backlogs of boxes. “Due to extreme yard congestion at Antwerp Gateway Terminal, the terminal has implemented immediate measures to prevent a full operational standstill,” Cosco Shipping told customers in an advisory Thursday. “Antwerp Gateway will not accept contingency discharge/transshipment for nearby ports, and import deliveries will be prioritized over export shipments,” the carrier added. Kuehne + Nagel said stacking capacity in the Antwerp terminal was fully utilized and export delivery truck slots were being cut to 30% to prioritize the swift removal of import containers. Intermodal operator Contargo warned customers this week that the average waiting times for the handling of its barges were 76 hours in Rotterdam and 84 hours in Antwerp, while carriers are reporting feeders experiencing delays of 72 hours. Port workers in France this month are holding four-hour stoppages on 10 separate days ending Feb. 24 at container ports across the country, severely disrupting handling operations. A 48-hour countrywide strike is planned for Feb. 26–28. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Correction: The dispute is affecting Hutchison Ports’ Delta II terminal and not Hutchison Ports’ ECT Delta as first stated. A call by Dutch union FNV Havens for ports in Europe to refuse to handle ships diverted from Rotterdam’s Hutchison Ports-owned Delta II terminal has raised the specter of cross-border “solidarity strikes” that the shipping industry is watching closely. Intermittent strike action has taken place this month at the Rotterdam terminal. No reports have yet been received of dockworkers elsewhere refusing to handle ships diverted from the terminal, but Tim Seifert, a spokesman for Delta II customer Hapag-Lloyd, said the carrier was monitoring the situation. “It is a bit early to evaluate the precise impact of the strike [activity],” Seifert told the Journal of Commerce this week. “We are analyzing the situation and looking at a case-by-case basis to see whether it creates sense to deviate vessels or adjust rotations and hope that the parties involved will quickly reach an agreement in their negotiations.” A spokesperson for Hutchison Ports said labor action was ongoing, but “in the meantime ships are being handled.” The FNV dispute over severance pay compensation has resulted in a series of walkouts by dockworkers at the Delta II terminal in the Maasvlakte area over the past month, severely disrupting the handling of deep-sea vessels, regional feeder ship calls and inland-bound cargo. “This compensation is a crucial part of the collective labor agreement that we made on Jan. 30,” Asmae Hajjari, union leader of FNV Havens, said in a statement this week. “The fact that the shareholder of Hutchison Ports now suddenly refuses to provide this guarantee is unacceptable to us.” Frustrated by the response from the terminal owner, the union is attempting to mobilize support in the region against Hutchison Ports via the European Transport Federation (ETF). “The union has called on its European colleagues to show solidarity with the dock workers in the port of Rotterdam,” FNV said in the statement. “If ships destined for Hutchison {Delta II] divert to other ports, these ports have been called upon not to handle these ships because of contaminated work.” Last-minute port omissions Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta, said carriers were making “last-minute omissions” of Rotterdam but he had not seen proof of solidarity strikes in Europe based on the FNV call, adding that “it will be pretty disastrous” if such strikes were held. “At a point where record cargo volumes from Asia are reaching the terminals of Europe, the timing of rolling strikes in container terminals across France and now also at the Rotterdam terminal is really bad,” Sand said. Bart Kuipers, port economist at the Erasmus Centre for Urban, Port and Transport Economics in Rotterdam, said a coordinated approach by European unions was rare and usually related to a European policy measure, a global problem or a problem with a particular company, such as the Hutchison Ports terminal. “What is quite normal is that port unions in other ports show their solidarity, so delegations from all over the world can show up at meetings in a certain port,” Kuipers told the Journal of Commerce Friday, adding that port unions were organized in a global network and that Hajjari, the leader of the Rotterdam union, was well known in the US. Data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS) shows China-to-North Europe volumes in December increased 17.6% year over year to a one-month record of 835,000 TEUs. Those containers are currently arriving at Northern European ports, and combined with the bad weather and dockworker strikes, are contributing to congestion. Hanna Stelzel, director of containers at the Port of Rotterdam, said the end of December and the beginning of January were congested due to holiday closures and adverse weather conditions, including a prolonged period of heavy fog. “Provided that weather conditions remain stable, we anticipate a gradual improvement in the weather-related situation,” she said, although acknowledging the ratio of waiting ships to the number of ships in the port remained high. The average waiting time at Rotterdam was about 1.2 days on Feb. 15, with eight vessels waiting at anchorage to enter the port, down from 16 on Jan. 18, according to data from S&P Global Commodity Insights. S&P Global is the parent of Journal of Commerce. Kuehne + Nagel said on its SeaExplorer visibility platform that yard congestion in Rotterdam was high at 90% and berths were ”fully occupied for the next months.” Rotterdam World Gateway has stopped accepting empty containers into its yard as a precautionary measure, SeaExplorer noted. Rotterdam handled a total of 13.8 million TEUs in 2024, a 2.8% increase year over year, as rising wages and falling inflation led to increased demand for consumer goods and food, the port said in a statement Friday. Emergency measures at Antwerp The bottlenecks in Rotterdam and rolling strikes in French ports through February are adding to the volume being diverted to Antwerp-Bruges, contributing to rising congestion at Europe’s second-largest hub. Overflowing container yards after persistently high import volume from Asia have forced at least one terminal – Antwerp Gateway – to implement emergency measures to clear the backlogs of boxes. “Due to extreme yard congestion at Antwerp Gateway Terminal, the terminal has implemented immediate measures to prevent a full operational standstill,” Cosco Shipping told customers in an advisory Thursday. “Antwerp Gateway will not accept contingency discharge/transshipment for nearby ports, and import deliveries will be prioritized over export shipments,” the carrier added. Kuehne + Nagel said stacking capacity in the Antwerp terminal was fully utilized and export delivery truck slots were being cut to 30% to prioritize the swift removal of import containers. Intermodal operator Contargo warned customers this week that the average waiting times for the handling of its barges were 76 hours in Rotterdam and 84 hours in Antwerp, while carriers are reporting feeders experiencing delays of 72 hours. Port workers in France this month are holding four-hour stoppages on 10 separate days ending Feb. 24 at container ports across the country, severely disrupting handling operations. A 48-hour countrywide strike is planned for Feb. 26–28. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

‘Solidarity strike’ call by Dutch port union gets industry attention

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

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

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

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

North American ports

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

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

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!

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

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

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

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

Port News

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Geopolitics, weak German economy slowed Hamburg’s 2024 volume growth

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

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