<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Exxon Shipping Co. attorneys argued in federal court Monday that fired captain Joseph Hazelwood's dr</div>

Exxon Shipping Co. attorneys argued in federal court Monday that fired captain Joseph Hazelwood's dr

<div>Exxon Shipping Co. attorneys argued in federal court Monday that fired captain Joseph Hazelwood's drinking history, Exxon's post-disaster alcohol policies and other evidence is irrelevant to criminal charges facing the oil company stemming from the nation's worst oil spill.Exxon Corp. and its shipping subsidiary face two felony and three misdemeanor charges stemming from the 11 million-gallon spill March 24, 1989, that fouled more than 1,200 miles of coastline and killed thousands of wild animals. The trial is scheduled to begin in Anchorage April 10.U.S. District Judge Russel Holland said he is likely to grant Exxon's motion to exclude testimony about...

Exxon Shipping Co. attorneys argued in federal court Monday that fired captain Joseph Hazelwood's drinking history, Exxon's post-disaster alcohol policies and other evidence is irrelevant to criminal charges facing the oil company stemming from the nation's worst oil spill. Exxon Corp. and its shipping subsidiary face two felony and three misdemeanor charges stemming from the 11 million-gallon spill March 24, 1989, that fouled more than 1,200 miles of coastline and killed thousands of wild animals. The trial is scheduled to begin in Anchorage April 10.U.S. District Judge Russel Holland said he is likely to grant Exxon's motion to exclude testimony about Mr. Hazelwood's drinking history from consideration of the alleged Clean Water Act violation, the first of the five counts charged.

Maritime

EXXON SEEKS TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The visibility market has bifurcated into standalone vendors too small to be captured by Gartner’s “Magic Quadrant” report and larger vendors whose platforms extend far beyond what the report evaluates.</div>

The visibility market has bifurcated into standalone vendors too small to be captured by Gartner’s “Magic Quadrant” report and larger vendors whose platforms extend far beyond what the report evaluates.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Gnosis Freight has announced a product integration with logistics payment vendor PayCargo and ocean carrier Hapag-Lloyd that connects shipper and forwarder payments to the liner with reduced dwell times and faster cargo release. In a vacuum, the announcement this week would be seen as positive step toward using visibility data — of which Gnosis has become a key provider for ocean and intermodal rail — in a way that directly influences actions that matter to shippers, carriers and container terminals. But the announcement came exactly one week after another noteworthy development in the freight visibility space: FourKites saying it was withdrawing from consideration from the so-called real-time transportation visibility provider (RTTVP) “Magic Quadrant” reports published by technology advisory firm Gartner. Gartner’s Magic Quadrants, or MQs, are software comparison reports widely used by enterprise shippers to help narrow down vendor options in several key supply chain software categories, from demand planning and warehouse management to freight-focused areas such as transportation management and visibility. Vendors are eligible for consideration based on the number of customers they have, their range of product and service features, customer interest and geographic footprint. Only six vendors were considered in the 2025 RTTVP edition. FourKites’ request to withdraw from the visibility MQ was due to its own changing business model focused around control tower technology, a model that wouldn’t be represented effectively by Gartner’s RTTVP criteria, FourKites asserted. FourKites was included in the most recent visibility MQ released last week, one of two providers (the other being fierce rival project44) in the “leaders” section of the quadrant. <h3>Public questioning </h3>In the 10 days since FourKites’ decision, much discussion has occurred online around the company’s withdrawal, including whether it was instigated by FourKites’ perennial placement in the quadrant behind project44. But more broadly, the decision has cast light on whether the visibility market as it currently exists is even well-captured by a report that focuses on pure transportation visibility data vendors that tend to cater mostly to large organizations with large software and data spend. The Gnosis-PayCargo announcement, in that context, shows the way the market is trending. “Quadrants and their naming tend to lag behind market evolution,” Eric Fullerton, vice president of product marketing at project44, said in a LinkedIn discussion Thursday. “No player in that MQ positions themselves as just RTTVP.” To be clear, much of the FourKites-Gartner debate is inexorably tinged by a vendor’s reliance on visibility data as a core revenue driver or a value-add component for customers. Those companies for whom visibility data is either the entire product or the core foundation of an application reliant on visibility data believe there is big differentiation in the market, largely based on modal coverage, geographic footprint, use of artificial intelligence and direct connection to decision-making tools. Those companies who view visibility as an ancillary product or perk regard it as undifferentiated and interchangeable. <h3>Shippers need more </h3>The FourKites decision essentially brought that long-simmering background issue into the open. But what does it mean for shippers? Brian Schultz, chief growth officer at control tower provider Paxafe and a veteran of visibility vendor Shippeo, wrote in a blog post Thursday that shippers will require that visibility providers proactively manage shipments across modes and not be “a glorified data aggregator ... and merely repeat carrier-provided data.” “While Gartner’s rankings generate discussion ... they’re increasingly disconnected from actual platform capabilities,” Schultz wrote. “Visibility alone is insufficient — actionability is essential.” The Gnosis-PayCargo payment portal with Hapag-Lloyd, announced during the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference in Long Beach, is a sign of how the market is evolving. Gnosis was not in the Gartner Magic Quadrant. It was likely too small, had customers in too few geographical markets and didn’t have complete enough modal coverage to qualify for the MQ, which makes sense because Gnosis isn’t even really an RTTVP vendor, anyway. The company became a provider of ocean and intermodal visibility data almost by accident, a consequence of building execution software that covers those modes and not being satisfied with the data provided by specialists. Gnosis now supplies that data to other software vendors, some of whom occupy lofty positions on the MQ. In a sense, Gnosis is the perfect example of how the market moves ahead of where somewhat static metrics could possibly cover. And it raises questions about the future of pure play visibility providers that have raised huge sums of external capital — mostly via venture funds. <h3>Valuations leading to evolution </h3>The same day FourKites announced it was leaving the visibility MQ, Jonah McIntire, chief platform officer at Transporeon, wrote a blog post arguing that project44, FourKites and Shippeo had collectively raised more than $1.2 billion and would have to collectively exit for at least $5 billion to give their venture backers the return they would have initially sought. McIntire said that return will be impossible because the total addressable market (TAM) analysis of venture capital-backed startups “overestimated the actual market size and willingness to buy.” He said it’s especially true because the market isn’t inclined to spend more to achieve better visibility compared with “good enough” visibility. When considering McIntire’s view of the market, it’s important to note Transporeon falls into the category of vendors for whom visibility is an ancillary feature, not a core revenue driver. The company is more commonly used for transportation procurement and execution. But Fullerton argues the magic quadrants still have merit, if you consider who is using them. “While imperfect, these quadrants drive billions in tech spending annually,” he wrote on LinkedIn Thursday. “The market speaks. Buyers with budgets — not critics — fuel the demand.” “No company feels Gartner’s criteria represents them properly,” Fullerton added. “I don’t feel like RTTVP criteria reflects our platform, but it’s the game we signed up to play when agreeing to participate in the evaluation.” Indeed, both FourKites and project44 have in recent weeks announced AI enhancements to their products and new applications designed to extend the utility of visibility data. One source close to the Gartner process told the Journal of Commerce in early February that the RTTVP Magic Quadrant wasn’t really relevant any more given the way the market has evolved. “Visibility problems need to be increasingly urgent or novel,” McIntire wrote. “Their sales efforts need to make visibility more complicated than it really is. And I don’t think the supply chain management community buys that narrative anymore.” Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Gnosis Freight has announced a product integration with logistics payment vendor PayCargo and ocean carrier Hapag-Lloyd that connects shipper and forwarder payments to the liner with reduced dwell times and faster cargo release. In a vacuum, the announcement this week would be seen as positive step toward using visibility data — of which Gnosis has become a key provider for ocean and intermodal rail — in a way that directly influences actions that matter to shippers, carriers and container terminals. But the announcement came exactly one week after another noteworthy development in the freight visibility space: FourKites saying it was withdrawing from consideration from the so-called real-time transportation visibility provider (RTTVP) “Magic Quadrant” reports published by technology advisory firm Gartner. Gartner’s Magic Quadrants, or MQs, are software comparison reports widely used by enterprise shippers to help narrow down vendor options in several key supply chain software categories, from demand planning and warehouse management to freight-focused areas such as transportation management and visibility. Vendors are eligible for consideration based on the number of customers they have, their range of product and service features, customer interest and geographic footprint. Only six vendors were considered in the 2025 RTTVP edition. FourKites’ request to withdraw from the visibility MQ was due to its own changing business model focused around control tower technology, a model that wouldn’t be represented effectively by Gartner’s RTTVP criteria, FourKites asserted. FourKites was included in the most recent visibility MQ released last week, one of two providers (the other being fierce rival project44) in the “leaders” section of the quadrant. Public questioning In the 10 days since FourKites’ decision, much discussion has occurred online around the company’s withdrawal, including whether it was instigated by FourKites’ perennial placement in the quadrant behind project44. But more broadly, the decision has cast light on whether the visibility market as it currently exists is even well-captured by a report that focuses on pure transportation visibility data vendors that tend to cater mostly to large organizations with large software and data spend. The Gnosis-PayCargo announcement, in that context, shows the way the market is trending. “Quadrants and their naming tend to lag behind market evolution,” Eric Fullerton, vice president of product marketing at project44, said in a LinkedIn discussion Thursday. “No player in that MQ positions themselves as just RTTVP.” To be clear, much of the FourKites-Gartner debate is inexorably tinged by a vendor’s reliance on visibility data as a core revenue driver or a value-add component for customers. Those companies for whom visibility data is either the entire product or the core foundation of an application reliant on visibility data believe there is big differentiation in the market, largely based on modal coverage, geographic footprint, use of artificial intelligence and direct connection to decision-making tools. Those companies who view visibility as an ancillary product or perk regard it as undifferentiated and interchangeable. Shippers need more The FourKites decision essentially brought that long-simmering background issue into the open. But what does it mean for shippers? Brian Schultz, chief growth officer at control tower provider Paxafe and a veteran of visibility vendor Shippeo, wrote in a blog post Thursday that shippers will require that visibility providers proactively manage shipments across modes and not be “a glorified data aggregator ... and merely repeat carrier-provided data.” “While Gartner’s rankings generate discussion ... they’re increasingly disconnected from actual platform capabilities,” Schultz wrote. “Visibility alone is insufficient — actionability is essential.” The Gnosis-PayCargo payment portal with Hapag-Lloyd, announced during the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference in Long Beach, is a sign of how the market is evolving. Gnosis was not in the Gartner Magic Quadrant. It was likely too small, had customers in too few geographical markets and didn’t have complete enough modal coverage to qualify for the MQ, which makes sense because Gnosis isn’t even really an RTTVP vendor, anyway. The company became a provider of ocean and intermodal visibility data almost by accident, a consequence of building execution software that covers those modes and not being satisfied with the data provided by specialists. Gnosis now supplies that data to other software vendors, some of whom occupy lofty positions on the MQ. In a sense, Gnosis is the perfect example of how the market moves ahead of where somewhat static metrics could possibly cover. And it raises questions about the future of pure play visibility providers that have raised huge sums of external capital — mostly via venture funds. Valuations leading to evolution The same day FourKites announced it was leaving the visibility MQ, Jonah McIntire, chief platform officer at Transporeon, wrote a blog post arguing that project44, FourKites and Shippeo had collectively raised more than $1.2 billion and would have to collectively exit for at least $5 billion to give their venture backers the return they would have initially sought. McIntire said that return will be impossible because the total addressable market (TAM) analysis of venture capital-backed startups “overestimated the actual market size and willingness to buy.” He said it’s especially true because the market isn’t inclined to spend more to achieve better visibility compared with “good enough” visibility. When considering McIntire’s view of the market, it’s important to note Transporeon falls into the category of vendors for whom visibility is an ancillary feature, not a core revenue driver. The company is more commonly used for transportation procurement and execution. But Fullerton argues the magic quadrants still have merit, if you consider who is using them. “While imperfect, these quadrants drive billions in tech spending annually,” he wrote on LinkedIn Thursday. “The market speaks. Buyers with budgets — not critics — fuel the demand.” “No company feels Gartner’s criteria represents them properly,” Fullerton added. “I don’t feel like RTTVP criteria reflects our platform, but it’s the game we signed up to play when agreeing to participate in the evaluation.” Indeed, both FourKites and project44 have in recent weeks announced AI enhancements to their products and new applications designed to extend the utility of visibility data. One source close to the Gartner process told the Journal of Commerce in early February that the RTTVP Magic Quadrant wasn’t really relevant any more given the way the market has evolved. “Visibility problems need to be increasingly urgent or novel,” McIntire wrote. “Their sales efforts need to make visibility more complicated than it really is. And I don’t think the supply chain management community buys that narrative anymore.” Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Trucking News

Rail News

Logistics Technology News

FourKites’ exit from Gartner visibility assessment highlights evolving market

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The so-called Ocean Shipper Bill of Rights was distributed by the National Industrial Transportation League at the conclusion of the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference. </div>

The so-called Ocean Shipper Bill of Rights was distributed by the National Industrial Transportation League at the conclusion of the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference.

<div class="phx-topic">Long Beach, California — The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) has unveiled a proposed “bill of rights” for US shippers that aims to increase industry transparency and ocean carrier accountability. The so-called Ocean Shipper Bill of Rights (OSBOR) was distributed by the NITL at a meeting Wednesday of the National Shipper Advisory Committee (NSAC) held at the conclusion of the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference in Long Beach. NSAC is the importer-exporter group established by Congress to advise the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). OSBOR, which aims to benefit small and medium-sized shippers, consists of 14 key “rights” for shippers built around elements such as pricing, equipment availability, documentation accuracy, claims resolution, and overall contract compliance by ocean carriers. The NITL said the document is intended to eliminate ambiguity around pricing structures, delivery times and other shipment details. It would ensure shippers and carriers “benefit from clearer, more equitable practices, fostering better collaboration and efficiency within the industry,” the NITL said in a statement. The group said OSBOR would help small and medium-sized shippers achieve better bargaining power, “enabling them to compete on more equal footing with larger freight carriers.” <h3>Starting point for dialogue </h3>It’s unclear at the moment whether the NITL will push for legislation in Washington that would mandate OSBOR be included in ocean freight contracts or whether it will simply recommend that shippers try to insert some or all the points in their individual contracts with carriers. “It’s not too much to ask, but changing the boiler plate in the service contracts [with carriers] is darn near impossible unless you’re [an] uber big shipper,” Rich Roche, senior vice president at Mohawk Global and an NSAC member, said at the NSAC meeting. “That is probably one of the largest hurdles that you would have.” OSBOR is a starting point for the dialogue with carriers, said Siva Narayanan, director of global logistics at chemicals shipper Syensqo and the NITL’s ocean chair. “We are willing to be responsible shippers,” Narayanan said. “All we need is carriers that will provide reliable, predictable services.” NITL said it is currently developing a model ocean carrier contract that could be implemented in conjunction with OSBOR. For now, Narayanan said the document is a starting point for shipper advocacy discussions. “If you can take five of our points, take five points,” he said. “But if you can take all 14, take all 14. Whatever works for you. It’s a work in progress.” Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">laura.robb@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Long Beach, California — The National Industrial Transportation League (NITL) has unveiled a proposed “bill of rights” for US shippers that aims to increase industry transparency and ocean carrier accountability. The so-called Ocean Shipper Bill of Rights (OSBOR) was distributed by the NITL at a meeting Wednesday of the National Shipper Advisory Committee (NSAC) held at the conclusion of the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference in Long Beach. NSAC is the importer-exporter group established by Congress to advise the US Federal Maritime Commission (FMC). OSBOR, which aims to benefit small and medium-sized shippers, consists of 14 key “rights” for shippers built around elements such as pricing, equipment availability, documentation accuracy, claims resolution, and overall contract compliance by ocean carriers. The NITL said the document is intended to eliminate ambiguity around pricing structures, delivery times and other shipment details. It would ensure shippers and carriers “benefit from clearer, more equitable practices, fostering better collaboration and efficiency within the industry,” the NITL said in a statement. The group said OSBOR would help small and medium-sized shippers achieve better bargaining power, “enabling them to compete on more equal footing with larger freight carriers.” Starting point for dialogue It’s unclear at the moment whether the NITL will push for legislation in Washington that would mandate OSBOR be included in ocean freight contracts or whether it will simply recommend that shippers try to insert some or all the points in their individual contracts with carriers. “It’s not too much to ask, but changing the boiler plate in the service contracts [with carriers] is darn near impossible unless you’re [an] uber big shipper,” Rich Roche, senior vice president at Mohawk Global and an NSAC member, said at the NSAC meeting. “That is probably one of the largest hurdles that you would have.” OSBOR is a starting point for the dialogue with carriers, said Siva Narayanan, director of global logistics at chemicals shipper Syensqo and the NITL’s ocean chair. “We are willing to be responsible shippers,” Narayanan said. “All we need is carriers that will provide reliable, predictable services.” NITL said it is currently developing a model ocean carrier contract that could be implemented in conjunction with OSBOR. For now, Narayanan said the document is a starting point for shipper advocacy discussions. “If you can take five of our points, take five points,” he said. “But if you can take all 14, take all 14. Whatever works for you. It’s a work in progress.” Contact Laura Robb at laura.robb@spglobal.com .

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Shipper ‘bill of rights’ takes aim at ocean carrier accountability, transparency

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">European governments and the European Commission will carry out regulatory reviews to assess the level of market concentration MSC will have with the planned takeover of Hutchison’s port assets, with divestitures likely on the table.</div>

European governments and the European Commission will carry out regulatory reviews to assess the level of market concentration MSC will have with the planned takeover of Hutchison’s port assets, with divestitures likely on the table.

<div class="phx-topic">Hutchison’s $22.8 billion disposal of most of its global terminal interests to a consortium of BlackRock Group and Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) is likely to trigger a wave of terminal deals as MSC divests facilities to meet regulators’ anti-trust demands, Drewry’s leading port analyst says. These are expected to include terminals at Rotterdam, Le Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and in Egypt, Eleanor Hadland, lead analyst for ports and terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, told the Journal of Commerce. The sale has also raised questions about the future of Hutchison’s port interests in China — which are not part of the BlackRock/TiL deal — and the 20% stake in Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH) held by Singapore-headquartered terminal operator PSA International, Hadland added. “Hutchison is not the most dynamic operator. Its ports portfolio has been chugging along since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Hadland said. “There has been growth, but it’s been organic, mainly expanding capacity at existing terminals rather than acquiring new ports.” CK Hutchison, the Hong Kong-listed parent of Hutchison Port Holdings, announced on Tuesday it had reached an agreement with BlackRock/TiL to sell its 80% stake in HPH, including the 90% HPH holds in the Panama Ports Company. The deal, subject to regulatory approval, will catapult MSC into pole position as the world’s largest terminal operator with annual throughput volumes of almost 120 million TEUs based on 2023 figures, leapfrogging the three existing top operators — Singapore’s PSA, China Merchants Port Holdings and Cosco Shipping Ports. Hadland said in Europe, national governments and the European Commission will carry out regulatory reviews to assess the level of market concentration MSC will have with the takeover of Hutchison’s port assets. She pointed out that in Rotterdam, MSC and Hutchison are among the largest terminal owners and operators, controlling more than 13 million TEUs of capacity. That includes MSC’s Delta Dedicated North Terminal operated under an agreement with ECT, which is 89.4% owned by Hutchison. ECT also operates the ECT Delta Terminal and holds a 60.8% stake in the Euromax Terminal, while Hutchison holds 100% of Hutchison Ports Delta II, she said. Euromax is likely to be among the divestment candidates, Hadland said. European Commission competition watchdogs are also likely to consider MSC’s dominant position in Antwerp and Hamburg when considering whether the Hutchison ports deal reduces competition at ports across Northern Europe. <h3>Future of PSA’s stake in Hutchison a question </h3>Commenting on PSA’s 20% stake in Hutchison Port Holdings, Hadland said there are two possible options. The first is for PSA to cash out, selling its interest to BlackRock/TiL or other investors. Or PSA can retain its shareholding in the hope its value increases as BlackRock/TiL rejuvenates Hutchison’s ports. PSA bought its stake for $4 billion in 2006 and made an unsuccessful attempt to dispose of its shareholding for a similar price tag in 2023 due to economic headwinds. PSA did not respond to Journal of Commerce questions about the future of its Hutchison ports stake. On the future of Hutchison’s port interests in China that are excluded from the BlackRock/TiL deal, Hadland speculated its stakes in terminals in Shanghai and Ningbo could be wrapped into Singapore-listed HPH Trust, which controls Hutchison’s port interests in Hong Kong and South China. She said an alternative option would be for Hutchison’s other shareholders — Shanghai International Port Group and Cosco Shipping Ports in Shanghai and Ningbo Port Group in Ningbo — to acquire them. The deal will bring significant benefits for MSC because the Hutchison portfolio is largely complementary to terminals controlled by TiL and opens new opportunities, such as in Australia, where MSC doesn’t have any terminals, while Hutchison has terminals in Sydney and Brisbane. “Operations in the high growth Southeast Asia and Mexican markets are seen to be particularly advantageous,” Hadland said. The deal could also prompt some shuffling of carriers between terminals as MSC moves operations to Hutchison terminals within ports. “Once the deal is done, which might be a year down the line, terminal operators could be worried about the business they are going to lose if or when MSC moves to Hutchison terminals,” Hadland said. <h3>Bank says Panama deal ‘understandable’ </h3>JPMorgan, meanwhile, said selling the Panama terminals was “understandable” given that Hutchison’s ownership has come under scrutiny from the Trump administration amid wider US concerns about alleged Chinese government control and influence on Panama Canal operations. But JPMorgan said the sale of Hutchison’s other terminals outside of China was a “surprise” and could be “an opportunistic deal.” “Based on our understanding of the management philosophy of CKH, any deal is possible as long as ‘the price is right,’” the bank said in a research note. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>.</div>

Hutchison’s $22.8 billion disposal of most of its global terminal interests to a consortium of BlackRock Group and Mediterranean Shipping Co.’s Terminal Investment Limited (TiL) is likely to trigger a wave of terminal deals as MSC divests facilities to meet regulators’ anti-trust demands, Drewry’s leading port analyst says. These are expected to include terminals at Rotterdam, Le Havre, Antwerp, Hamburg and in Egypt, Eleanor Hadland, lead analyst for ports and terminals at Drewry Maritime Research, told the Journal of Commerce. The sale has also raised questions about the future of Hutchison’s port interests in China — which are not part of the BlackRock/TiL deal — and the 20% stake in Hutchison Port Holdings (HPH) held by Singapore-headquartered terminal operator PSA International, Hadland added. “Hutchison is not the most dynamic operator. Its ports portfolio has been chugging along since the COVID-19 pandemic,” Hadland said. “There has been growth, but it’s been organic, mainly expanding capacity at existing terminals rather than acquiring new ports.” CK Hutchison, the Hong Kong-listed parent of Hutchison Port Holdings, announced on Tuesday it had reached an agreement with BlackRock/TiL to sell its 80% stake in HPH, including the 90% HPH holds in the Panama Ports Company. The deal, subject to regulatory approval, will catapult MSC into pole position as the world’s largest terminal operator with annual throughput volumes of almost 120 million TEUs based on 2023 figures, leapfrogging the three existing top operators — Singapore’s PSA, China Merchants Port Holdings and Cosco Shipping Ports. Hadland said in Europe, national governments and the European Commission will carry out regulatory reviews to assess the level of market concentration MSC will have with the takeover of Hutchison’s port assets. She pointed out that in Rotterdam, MSC and Hutchison are among the largest terminal owners and operators, controlling more than 13 million TEUs of capacity. That includes MSC’s Delta Dedicated North Terminal operated under an agreement with ECT, which is 89.4% owned by Hutchison. ECT also operates the ECT Delta Terminal and holds a 60.8% stake in the Euromax Terminal, while Hutchison holds 100% of Hutchison Ports Delta II, she said. Euromax is likely to be among the divestment candidates, Hadland said. European Commission competition watchdogs are also likely to consider MSC’s dominant position in Antwerp and Hamburg when considering whether the Hutchison ports deal reduces competition at ports across Northern Europe. Future of PSA’s stake in Hutchison a question Commenting on PSA’s 20% stake in Hutchison Port Holdings, Hadland said there are two possible options. The first is for PSA to cash out, selling its interest to BlackRock/TiL or other investors. Or PSA can retain its shareholding in the hope its value increases as BlackRock/TiL rejuvenates Hutchison’s ports. PSA bought its stake for $4 billion in 2006 and made an unsuccessful attempt to dispose of its shareholding for a similar price tag in 2023 due to economic headwinds. PSA did not respond to Journal of Commerce questions about the future of its Hutchison ports stake. On the future of Hutchison’s port interests in China that are excluded from the BlackRock/TiL deal, Hadland speculated its stakes in terminals in Shanghai and Ningbo could be wrapped into Singapore-listed HPH Trust, which controls Hutchison’s port interests in Hong Kong and South China. She said an alternative option would be for Hutchison’s other shareholders — Shanghai International Port Group and Cosco Shipping Ports in Shanghai and Ningbo Port Group in Ningbo — to acquire them. The deal will bring significant benefits for MSC because the Hutchison portfolio is largely complementary to terminals controlled by TiL and opens new opportunities, such as in Australia, where MSC doesn’t have any terminals, while Hutchison has terminals in Sydney and Brisbane. “Operations in the high growth Southeast Asia and Mexican markets are seen to be particularly advantageous,” Hadland said. The deal could also prompt some shuffling of carriers between terminals as MSC moves operations to Hutchison terminals within ports. “Once the deal is done, which might be a year down the line, terminal operators could be worried about the business they are going to lose if or when MSC moves to Hutchison terminals,” Hadland said. Bank says Panama deal ‘understandable’ JPMorgan, meanwhile, said selling the Panama terminals was “understandable” given that Hutchison’s ownership has come under scrutiny from the Trump administration amid wider US concerns about alleged Chinese government control and influence on Panama Canal operations. But JPMorgan said the sale of Hutchison’s other terminals outside of China was a “surprise” and could be “an opportunistic deal.” “Based on our understanding of the management philosophy of CKH, any deal is possible as long as ‘the price is right,’” the bank said in a research note. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

Marine terminals

International ports

Big Hutchison deal could reshuffle global ports network: Drewry

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Across all the terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach, average rail dwell times peaked at just under 10 days in October, according to the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association.</div>

Across all the terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach, average rail dwell times peaked at just under 10 days in October, according to the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association.

<div class="phx-topic">Long Beach, California — Rail dwell times at marine terminals along the US West Coast must come down from last year’s elevated peak season levels to prevent shippers from diverting cargo to the East Coast, panelists at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference warned. At five of the six terminals at the Port of Los Angeles, rail dwell times averaged more than 10 days between last August and October, according to data from OpenTrack. At Yusen Terminals, dwell times to transfer containers from vessels to trains peaked at 18.3 days in October. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5951881_0.1.jpg"></img></div>“If you’re staring at 18- to 20-day dwell times, then obviously there’s motivation to use other ports [on the East Coast] and I wouldn’t blame them for doing that,” Alan McCorkle, CEO of Yusen Terminals, told TPM25 this week. “We’ve got to find a way to be competitive and keep that number to four or six days during peak season. Cargo moved and a lot of great stories came out of the last peak season, but we’ve got to do better. “We cannot have these kinds of dwells, and if we cannot come together to figure it out, then cargo will go elsewhere,” he added. Across all the terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach, average rail dwell times peaked at 9.9 days in October, according to the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association (PMSA). OpenTrack data suggests delays were more severe in Los Angeles than in Long Beach. On the East Coast, by contrast, ocean containers are usually transferred from vessels to trains within three days, except for disruptions caused by hurricanes, snowstorms or the pandemic. One reason for the higher dwells is the at-times spotty communication between ocean carriers, terminal operators and railroads. While that has improved over the last five years, gaps remain. Dustin Stoker, president of Husky Terminal at the Port of Tacoma, said ocean carriers effectively communicated that a surge in cargo was coming last spring but failed to do that during a second surge in August and September. “There were instances where some [container] lines communicated appropriately, and that cargo moved much better,” Stoker said. “But there were also instances where the communication was not great, and things happened that we weren’t aware of.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="155dedc1-99f2-4adf-a449-1c9ab2510f95"></dynamic-object></div>Union Pacific Railroad, during its third-quarter earnings call late last year, noted that it handled a 33% increase in international intermodal volume “without much advance notice, if any advance notice.” Despite the current challenges, McCorkle said communication among ocean carriers, cargo owners and marine terminals has improved significantly since 2020. “The [beneficial cargo owners] are communicating to the shipping line and the shipping line knows what they’re pulling then, so it falls back to the shipping line, the railroad and the marine terminal operators to show [they’re] going to handle your business smoothly,” he said. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Long Beach, California — Rail dwell times at marine terminals along the US West Coast must come down from last year’s elevated peak season levels to prevent shippers from diverting cargo to the East Coast, panelists at the Journal of Commerce’s TPM25 conference warned. At five of the six terminals at the Port of Los Angeles, rail dwell times averaged more than 10 days between last August and October, according to data from OpenTrack. At Yusen Terminals, dwell times to transfer containers from vessels to trains peaked at 18.3 days in October. “If you’re staring at 18- to 20-day dwell times, then obviously there’s motivation to use other ports [on the East Coast] and I wouldn’t blame them for doing that,” Alan McCorkle, CEO of Yusen Terminals, told TPM25 this week. “We’ve got to find a way to be competitive and keep that number to four or six days during peak season. Cargo moved and a lot of great stories came out of the last peak season, but we’ve got to do better. “We cannot have these kinds of dwells, and if we cannot come together to figure it out, then cargo will go elsewhere,” he added. Across all the terminals in Los Angeles and Long Beach, average rail dwell times peaked at 9.9 days in October, according to the Pacific Maritime Shipping Association (PMSA). OpenTrack data suggests delays were more severe in Los Angeles than in Long Beach. On the East Coast, by contrast, ocean containers are usually transferred from vessels to trains within three days, except for disruptions caused by hurricanes, snowstorms or the pandemic. One reason for the higher dwells is the at-times spotty communication between ocean carriers, terminal operators and railroads. While that has improved over the last five years, gaps remain. Dustin Stoker, president of Husky Terminal at the Port of Tacoma, said ocean carriers effectively communicated that a surge in cargo was coming last spring but failed to do that during a second surge in August and September. “There were instances where some [container] lines communicated appropriately, and that cargo moved much better,” Stoker said. “But there were also instances where the communication was not great, and things happened that we weren’t aware of.” Union Pacific Railroad, during its third-quarter earnings call late last year, noted that it handled a 33% increase in international intermodal volume “without much advance notice, if any advance notice.” Despite the current challenges, McCorkle said communication among ocean carriers, cargo owners and marine terminals has improved significantly since 2020. “The [beneficial cargo owners] are communicating to the shipping line and the shipping line knows what they’re pulling then, so it falls back to the shipping line, the railroad and the marine terminal operators to show [they’re] going to handle your business smoothly,” he said. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

North American ports

TPM25: West Coast rail dwells need to improve to avoid cargo loss: terminals

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The arrival of the first vehicle imports in five years has sparked renewed interest in the country’s auto shipment potential.</div>

The arrival of the first vehicle imports in five years has sparked renewed interest in the country’s auto shipment potential.

<div class="phx-topic">Roll-on/roll-off vessel operators and multipurpose terminals in Sri Lanka are anticipating growth after the termination of a five-year government ban on vehicle imports. The Feb. 27 arrival of the NYK-operated Jupiter Leader at Hambantota International Port (HIP) marked the end of an embargo that began in March 2020. The shipment included 196 Japanese vehicles for the local market out of a total 378 discharges, the port said in a statement. An NYK Lanka executive expressed optimism that ro/ro demand will gain pace as domestic-linked auto shipments grow. “Based on estimates from Sri Lanka’s Vehicle Import Association and Central Bank, we expect increased domestic vehicle imports into the country,” the executive said to the Journal of Commerce. NYK has traditionally carried imports from the Far East and India for Sri Lanka, a trade the source said is expected to continue.Prior to the ban, Sri Lanka was importing vehicles worth approximately $1.5 billion, according to industry data.However, the policy reversal comes with two caveats, sources told the Journal of Commerce: restrictions on the type of vehicles permitted for import and oversight from Sri Lanka’s central bank to allay a foreign exchange crunch — the catalyst for the original ban. <h3>HIP’s monopoly on country’s ro/ro trade</h3>Sri Lanka’s ro/ro trade flows are entirely concentrated at HIP, a new harbor developed and managed by China Merchants Port Holdings, located about 150 miles southeast of Colombo Port.HIP has seen marked growth in ro/ro volumes, rising from 238,997 units in 2018 to 579,362 units in 2024. The port noted in a Feb. 3 statement that it is fully equipped “with a range of specialized facilities” to handle the anticipated surge in vehicle inflows resulting from that liberalized market environment.“With the local automotive market on the rise, HIP is set to play a key role in meeting the growing demand, backed by its state-of-the-art infrastructure and experienced workforce,” the port authority said in the statement.The Chinese operator added it had recently invested about $2 million in ro/ro infrastructure enhancement projects at Hambantota.“The port’s newly designed vehicle import yard is specifically tailored to accommodate vehicle imports,” it said. “With a storage capacity for at least approximately 4,000 vehicles, the yard is designed to manage both local and transshipment vehicles efficiently.” Hambantota features 11 berths for ro/ro operations and hosts regular liner services from leading car carriers, including Hyundai Glovis, ‘K’ Line, MOL, Hoegh Autoliners, Eastern Car Liner and Gold Star Line, in addition to NYK Line. “On average, the port handles about 25 ro/ro vessel calls a month,” one HIP executive who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “Ro/ro transshipment demand remains upbeat due to growing vehicle production and exports from this region.”A significant portion of Hambantota’s ro/ro transshipment volumes is Indian-origin auto shipments, mostly destined for Latin America, Japan, the Middle East and Africa, sources in Colombo noted. Indian-made finished vehicles passing through Sri Lankan intermediate ports are, in large part, models produced by South Korea’s Hyundai Motor and Kia Motors out of their plants in and around Chennai, popularly known as the “Detroit of India.”Sri Lanka’s domestic mobility market has been historically dominated by Japanese brands, namely Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Suzuki and Mitsubishi. Now that imports are reopening, original equipment manufacturers in India and China are hoping for an export demand boost in the Asian market, sources said.Maruti Suzuki, India’s top automaker and exporter and the local subsidiary of Japanese automaker Suzuki Motor Corporation, had import stakes in the Sri Lanka market prior to the ban. The company would not comment on its entry or re-entry into that trade when contacted by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at <a href="mailto:bencymathew@gmail.com">bencymathew@gmail.com</a>.</div>

Roll-on/roll-off vessel operators and multipurpose terminals in Sri Lanka are anticipating growth after the termination of a five-year government ban on vehicle imports. The Feb. 27 arrival of the NYK-operated Jupiter Leader at Hambantota International Port (HIP) marked the end of an embargo that began in March 2020. The shipment included 196 Japanese vehicles for the local market out of a total 378 discharges, the port said in a statement. An NYK Lanka executive expressed optimism that ro/ro demand will gain pace as domestic-linked auto shipments grow. “Based on estimates from Sri Lanka’s Vehicle Import Association and Central Bank, we expect increased domestic vehicle imports into the country,” the executive said to the Journal of Commerce. NYK has traditionally carried imports from the Far East and India for Sri Lanka, a trade the source said is expected to continue. Prior to the ban, Sri Lanka was importing vehicles worth approximately $1.5 billion, according to industry data. However, the policy reversal comes with two caveats, sources told the Journal of Commerce: restrictions on the type of vehicles permitted for import and oversight from Sri Lanka’s central bank to allay a foreign exchange crunch — the catalyst for the original ban. HIP’s monopoly on country’s ro/ro trade Sri Lanka’s ro/ro trade flows are entirely concentrated at HIP, a new harbor developed and managed by China Merchants Port Holdings, located about 150 miles southeast of Colombo Port. HIP has seen marked growth in ro/ro volumes, rising from 238,997 units in 2018 to 579,362 units in 2024. The port noted in a Feb. 3 statement that it is fully equipped “with a range of specialized facilities” to handle the anticipated surge in vehicle inflows resulting from that liberalized market environment. “With the local automotive market on the rise, HIP is set to play a key role in meeting the growing demand, backed by its state-of-the-art infrastructure and experienced workforce,” the port authority said in the statement. The Chinese operator added it had recently invested about $2 million in ro/ro infrastructure enhancement projects at Hambantota. “The port’s newly designed vehicle import yard is specifically tailored to accommodate vehicle imports,” it said. “With a storage capacity for at least approximately 4,000 vehicles, the yard is designed to manage both local and transshipment vehicles efficiently.” Hambantota features 11 berths for ro/ro operations and hosts regular liner services from leading car carriers, including Hyundai Glovis, ‘K’ Line, MOL, Hoegh Autoliners, Eastern Car Liner and Gold Star Line, in addition to NYK Line. “On average, the port handles about 25 ro/ro vessel calls a month,” one HIP executive who did not want to be identified told the Journal of Commerce. “Ro/ro transshipment demand remains upbeat due to growing vehicle production and exports from this region.” A significant portion of Hambantota’s ro/ro transshipment volumes is Indian-origin auto shipments, mostly destined for Latin America, Japan, the Middle East and Africa, sources in Colombo noted. Indian-made finished vehicles passing through Sri Lankan intermediate ports are, in large part, models produced by South Korea’s Hyundai Motor and Kia Motors out of their plants in and around Chennai, popularly known as the “Detroit of India.” Sri Lanka’s domestic mobility market has been historically dominated by Japanese brands, namely Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Suzuki and Mitsubishi. Now that imports are reopening, original equipment manufacturers in India and China are hoping for an export demand boost in the Asian market, sources said. Maruti Suzuki, India’s top automaker and exporter and the local subsidiary of Japanese automaker Suzuki Motor Corporation, had import stakes in the Sri Lanka market prior to the ban. The company would not comment on its entry or re-entry into that trade when contacted by the Journal of Commerce. Contact Bency Mathew at bencymathew@gmail.com .

Ro/ro cargo

Breakbulk ports

Breakbulk News

Ro/ro operators eye Sri Lanka trade boost as vehicle import ban lifted

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

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

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

Upgrade Subscription

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

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


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

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

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

FourKites’ exit from Gartner visibility assessment highlights evolving market

Shipper ‘bill of rights’ takes aim at ocean carrier accountability, transparency

Big Hutchison deal could reshuffle global ports network: Drewry