<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Given shipping’s relatively poor track record on implementing anything not rigorously enforced, and a preference to delay action to the last possible minute, there seems to be a high risk that decarbonization milestones will not be met, writes analyst Lars Jensen.</div>

Given shipping’s relatively poor track record on implementing anything not rigorously enforced, and a preference to delay action to the last possible minute, there seems to be a high risk that decarbonization milestones will not be met, writes analyst Lars Jensen.

3687198_FI.jpg

<div>Anyone who follows container shipping knows how much decarbonization has become a highly prioritized topic in many of the conversations about the industry’s path in the coming decades.&nbsp;I will not lay out all the arguments as to why this is important, nor the multitude of arguments from the container carriers as to how they will attain decarbonization goals. Instead, the sentiment appears to be that this is so important that for the sake of the planet, we cannot afford to fail on these targets.<div><img></div>And indeed, the analysis on climate impact of carbon emissions is scary — no wonder urgent action...

Anyone who follows container shipping knows how much decarbonization has become a highly prioritized topic in many of the conversations about the industry’s path in the coming decades.  I will not lay out all the arguments as to why this is important, nor the multitude of arguments from the container carriers as to how they will attain decarbonization goals. Instead, the sentiment appears to be that this is so important that for the sake of the planet, we cannot afford to fail on these targets. And indeed, the analysis on climate impact of carbon emissions is scary — no wonder urgent action is required.  The International Maritime Organization (IMO) updated its emissions targets in July 2023 , with the global shipping industry now aiming for a 20% to 30% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2030, 70% to 80% by 2040 and 100% by 2050.  In this context, it must be noted that the targets cover all shipping, not just the container segment. There are approximately 6,000 container vessels globally. But there are also 12,000 oil tankers, 13,000 bulk carriers and 20,000 general cargo vessels which need to decarbonize. That’s in addition to another 50,000 smaller vessel types.  Globally, shipping uses some 230 million tons of fuel per year. Current production of truly green fuels is effectively zero compared with the total current fuel usage.  According to UNCTAD’s annual report, decarbonization will require additional investments in vessels of between $8 billion to $28 billion per year out to 2050 — presumably above and beyond the investment needed to replenish the fleet as per usual. Similarly, the report indicates that investments of $28 billion to $90 billion annually out to 2050 are required to create the fuel infrastructure.   Investments of this magnitude are hard to see presently.  Positive developments, but not enough  There is no shortage of actual examples of improvements to date, including the launch of zero-carbon vessels, the usage of biofuels and the creation of green corridors, etc. — all perfectly positive developments. But it might be worth asking a different question: Is it realistic that we will reach the 2030, 2040 and 2050 milestones with the current level of activity?  The IMO targets come without an effective enforcement mechanism. And as anyone who has been in shipping for any considerable amount of time knows, regulation without enforcement is not effective. At best it will be enforced in some countries but not in others — and this will serve to skew competitiveness between countries in favor of the non-compliant countries.  Hence, despite the good initiatives already ongoing, it appears that the industry — all shipping, not just container shipping — is doing its level best to avoid the uncomfortable question: What happens if in 2029 it becomes clear that we are not going to reach the 2030 targets? What hard enforcement mechanisms do we need to ensure this? And is it even realistic to get all countries to agree on such mechanisms?  It would be good to be optimistic — after all, we still have six years to ensure we reach the targets. But this is the same industry which knew the IMO 2020 low-sulfur rules came with almost 10 years of lead time, yet only took action in 2019 amid many calls to postpone the implementation date. This is the industry where the European carbon tax coming in 2024 had recently been met by sporadic calls for a postponement and clearly no real focus until we were into 2023. It is the industry that took 20 years to agree on a rule to weigh containers before loading them, yet said rule is still not fully enforced everywhere.  Given the industry’s relatively poor track record on implementing anything not rigorously enforced and a preference to delay action to the last possible minute, there seems to be a high risk that we will indeed not reach the stated goals, and in 2029 there will be a sudden rush to discuss how to tackle that situation. Making matters worse, anyone who does put in the effort to meet the targets will face competitors who have lower costs, owing to them not putting in the same investment efforts — a market mechanism clearly penalizing decarbonization.  Contact Lars Jensen at lars.jensen@vespucci-maritime.com . 

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Fast-approaching green goals pose uncomfortable question for shipping: analyst

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The largest asset-based truckload carriers are churning their way through a muddy market bottom extended by economic uncertainty, searching for signs of rising demand. </div>

The largest asset-based truckload carriers are churning their way through a muddy market bottom extended by economic uncertainty, searching for signs of rising demand.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The 25 largest US truckload carriers cut their way through the second year of a cyclical freight downturn in 2024, with soft freight demand and low rates pushing their combined revenue down 3.9% year over year to $37.9 billion, according to the SJ Consulting Group/Journal of Commerce Top 25 US Truckload Carrier rankings. Excess capacity made it difficult for truckload carriers to gain traction in the market, except through acquisitions. The largest truckload carriers reduced their capacity throughout the year, parking or selling underutilized trucks, dropping the Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) to its <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/large-truckload-carriers-make-capacity-cuts-but-trucks-reenter-the-market-6004177">lowest level in a decade</a>. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e1610a4f-b93f-45aa-ae0c-d560b848ec49"></dynamic-object></div>Last year, revenue decreased at 17 of the Top 25 truckload carriers, an improvement compared with the 20 carriers in the rankings that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/journal-of-commerce-rankings-top-40-truckload-carriers-still-weak-after-2023-plunge-5225496">lost revenue in 2023</a>, according to SJ Consulting data. Since 2022, the Top 25 truckload carriers have lost 12.1% of their revenue, which hit $43 billion in that peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic boom. This year isn’t expected to bring much improvement for truckload carriers, large or small. Heading into 2025, truckload executives were optimistic about the prospects for a rebound in demand and pricing. Nearly six months into the year, much of that optimism is gone. “There’s no sustained, steady demand coming this year,” said Jason Miller, the Eli Broad endowed professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University. Surges in US imports did nothing to lift the truckload sector out of the doldrums in 2024, and they’re not likely to do so in 2025, especially when the timing and extent of such surges shifts with the volatile trade policy of the Trump administration. “Temporary spikes are not enough to change the market direction,” Miller told the Journal of Commerce. Yet some believe the direction of the market is heading upward, albeit slowly. The latest RXO Curve forecast from logistics provider RXO noted that contract rates measured by the Cass Contract Rate Index turned positive year over year in the first quarter, rising 1.4%. Spot rates at RXO were up 9.1% year over year in Q1. Even so, for spot or contract rates, “a steep ramp upwards is unlikely,” RXO said. <h3>Highs and lows </h3>The Top 25 truckload carriers in the rankings represent a small fraction of the total number of truckload carriers. There were 53,705 long-distance truckload carriers in operation across the US in 2022, according to the latest US Economic Census, a five-year census of businesses in the US and a benchmark for economic activity.The census data, released in April, does not include one-truck owner-operators. Only 248 of the 53,705 carriers in the US Economic Census had more than 250 employees. From 2017 through 2022 – the last two economic censuses – the overall number of truckload providers increased 68.3%. The number of truckload firms with more than 250 employees increased 12.2% with the addition of just 27 carriers in that period. In that same five-year period, the number of firms with five employees or fewer increased by 70.1% to 26,941 companies. That reflects growth during the 2018 trucking boom and then the explosion of new carriers from 2020 through 2022. The Top 25 truckload carriers, all companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue, may be outnumbered by small carriers, but they haul large volumes of freight for large shippers, making them almost a separate industry sector of their own. The largest carriers in the rankings were J.B. Hunt Transport Services, with $4.1 billion in truckload-related revenue; Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, with $3.5 billion; and Schneider National, with $2.6 billion, according to SJ Consulting Group research. Last year was the second at the top of the rankings for those three companies, yet they each lost revenue compared with 2023. J.B. Hunt’s truckload revenue dropped 5.4%, Knight-Swift's truckload revenue, excluding US Xpress Enterprises, dropped 4%; and Schneider’s topline fell 3.3%, according to the data behind the rankings. Ryder System climbed from eighth in the rankings to fourth place, increasing its truckload-related revenue 37% year over year. The increase does not represent Ryder’s total revenue, which increased 7% last year, but its truckload-related revenue as defined by SJ Consulting Group. The <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ryder-acquires-cardinal-logistics-adding-dedicated-trucking-muscle-5244728">acquisition of Cardinal Logistics</a> in 2024 fueled that growth. Multiyear strategic initiatives also are driving Ryder’s growth, Robert E. Sanchez, chairman and CEO, told Wall Street analysts during a first-quarter earnings call in April. “The key driver of expected earnings growth in 2025 is incremental benefits...related to our contractual lease, dedicated, and supply chain businesses,” Sanchez said. <h3>Ups and downs </h3>In addition to Ryder, the Top 25 carriers that increased revenue last year included Covenant Transportation Group (6.6%), Stevens Transport (5%), Universal Truckload (3.9%) and PS Logistics (1.7%), according to SJ Consulting Group data. An underlying lesson from Ryder is that diversification can be an effective strategy in dealing with a soft freight market and cautious customers. Many of the truckload carriers in the Top 25 rankings are pursuing more dedicated business rather than one-way truckload, or even, in the case of Knight-Swift, breaking into the less-than-truckload (LTL) market. The company that lost the most in terms of revenue was Daseke, a specialized heavy-haul conglomerate owned by TFI International. Daseke’s revenue dropped 17.8% year over year to $1.1 billion, according to SJ Consulting Group, which attributed the decline to lower demand for infrastructure and industrial project work for specialized trucking. However, Daseke retained its position as the 12th largest carrier in the rankings, a sign of how much revenue the overall market and the Top 25 group lost in 2024. The 17 carriers that lost revenue in 2024 saw that revenue drop 9% on average in 2024. Still, the combined revenue of the Top 25 truckload carriers was higher than in any year before 2022. From 2020 through 2022, that combined revenue shot up 38.7% and then dropped 12.1% through 2024. Altogether, nine carriers moved lower in the rankings last year, while six moved higher, and seven retained their rankings. Three new companies joined or rejoined the Top 25: Covenant Transportation Group, Universal Truckload and Anderson Trucking Services. The base level of revenue needed to get into the rankings fell from $722 million in 2023 to $565 million last year, a 21.8% decline. That’s an indicator of the depth of the demand-driven malaise in the truckload market. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.<div class="wrapper-full"><table><colgroup><col width="13.89%"></col><col width="41.12%"></col><col width="15.99%"></col><col width="15.99%"></col><col width="13.01%"></col></colgroup><caption>Journal of Commerce Top 25 US Truckload CarriersAnnual revenue, including fuel surcharges, in millions of US dollars</caption><thead><tr><th>2024 Rank</th><th>Carrier</th><th>2023 Revenue</th><th>2024 Revenue</th><th>YoY Change</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td class="align-right">1</td><td>J.B. Hunt Transport Services</td><td class="align-right">$4,332</td><td class="align-right">$4,097</td><td class="align-right">-5.4%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">2</td><td>Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings</td><td class="align-right">$3,683</td><td class="align-right">$3,535</td><td class="align-right">-4.0%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">3</td><td>Schneider National</td><td class="align-right">$2,640</td><td class="align-right">$2,552</td><td class="align-right">-3.3%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">4</td><td>Ryder System</td><td class="align-right">$1,785</td><td class="align-right">$2,446</td><td class="align-right">37.0%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">5</td><td>Prime</td><td class="align-right">$2,524</td><td class="align-right">$2,283</td><td class="align-right">-9.5%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">6</td><td>Penske Logistics</td><td class="align-right">$2,200</td><td class="align-right">$2,230</td><td class="align-right">1.4%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">7</td><td>Werner Enterprises</td><td class="align-right">$2,282</td><td class="align-right">$2,100</td><td class="align-right">-8.0%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">8</td><td>Landstar System</td><td class="align-right">$2,323</td><td class="align-right">$2,075</td><td class="align-right">-10.7%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">9</td><td>U.S. Xpress Enterprises1</td><td class="align-right">$1,698</td><td class="align-right">$1,500</td><td class="align-right">-11.7%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">10</td><td>CRST International1</td><td class="align-right">$1,668</td><td class="align-right">$1,597</td><td class="align-right">-4.3%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">11</td><td>Crete Carrier Corp.1</td><td class="align-right">$1,342</td><td class="align-right">$1,346</td><td class="align-right">0.3%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">12</td><td>Daseke1</td><td class="align-right">$1,277</td><td class="align-right">$1,050</td><td class="align-right">-17.8%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">13</td><td>Western Express1</td><td class="align-right">$1,054</td><td class="align-right">$1,062</td><td class="align-right">0.8%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">14</td><td>Heartland Express</td><td class="align-right">$1,207</td><td class="align-right">$1,048</td><td class="align-right">-13.2%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">15</td><td>PS Logistics</td><td class="align-right">$1,008</td><td class="align-right">$1,025</td><td class="align-right">1.7%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">16</td><td>NFI Industries</td><td class="align-right">$1,100</td><td class="align-right">$1,001</td><td class="align-right">-9.0%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">17</td><td>CR England</td><td class="align-right">$1,089</td><td class="align-right">$1,000</td><td class="align-right">-8.2%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">18</td><td>Ruan Transportation1</td><td class="align-right">$937</td><td class="align-right">$900</td><td class="align-right">-3.9%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">19</td><td>Stevens Transport1</td><td class="align-right">$765</td><td class="align-right">$803</td><td class="align-right">5.0%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">20</td><td>Hirschbach Motor Lines</td><td class="align-right">$808</td><td class="align-right">$777</td><td class="align-right">-3.8%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">21</td><td>Marten Transport</td><td class="align-right">$874</td><td class="align-right">$759</td><td class="align-right">-13.2%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">22</td><td>Covenant Transportation Group</td><td class="align-right">$696</td><td class="align-right">$742</td><td class="align-right">6.6%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">23</td><td>KLLM1</td><td class="align-right">$867</td><td class="align-right">$780</td><td class="align-right">-10.0%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">24</td><td>Universal Truckload</td><td class="align-right">$557</td><td class="align-right">$579</td><td class="align-right">3.9%</td></tr><tr><td class="align-right">25</td><td>Anderson Trucking Service1</td><td class="align-right">$675</td><td class="align-right">$565</td><td class="align-right">-16.3%</td></tr><tr class="phx-row-total"><td colspan="2">Total Top 25 US Truckload carriers</td><td class="align-right">$39,391</td><td class="align-right">$37,852</td><td class="align-right">-3.9%</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td colspan="5">1 SJ Consulting estimates</td></tr><tr class="phx-table-source"><td colspan="5">Sources: Company reports and SJ Consulting estimates. Prepared by SJ Consulting Group, Inc.© 2025 S&amp;P Global.</td></tr></tfoot></table></div></div>

The 25 largest US truckload carriers cut their way through the second year of a cyclical freight downturn in 2024, with soft freight demand and low rates pushing their combined revenue down 3.9% year over year to $37.9 billion, according to the SJ Consulting Group/Journal of Commerce Top 25 US Truckload Carrier rankings. Excess capacity made it difficult for truckload carriers to gain traction in the market, except through acquisitions. The largest truckload carriers reduced their capacity throughout the year, parking or selling underutilized trucks, dropping the Journal of Commerce Truckload Capacity Index (TCI) to its lowest level in a decade . Last year, revenue decreased at 17 of the Top 25 truckload carriers, an improvement compared with the 20 carriers in the rankings that lost revenue in 2023 , according to SJ Consulting data. Since 2022, the Top 25 truckload carriers have lost 12.1% of their revenue, which hit $43 billion in that peak year of the COVID-19 pandemic boom. This year isn’t expected to bring much improvement for truckload carriers, large or small. Heading into 2025, truckload executives were optimistic about the prospects for a rebound in demand and pricing. Nearly six months into the year, much of that optimism is gone. “There’s no sustained, steady demand coming this year,” said Jason Miller, the Eli Broad endowed professor of supply chain management at Michigan State University. Surges in US imports did nothing to lift the truckload sector out of the doldrums in 2024, and they’re not likely to do so in 2025, especially when the timing and extent of such surges shifts with the volatile trade policy of the Trump administration. “Temporary spikes are not enough to change the market direction,” Miller told the Journal of Commerce. Yet some believe the direction of the market is heading upward, albeit slowly. The latest RXO Curve forecast from logistics provider RXO noted that contract rates measured by the Cass Contract Rate Index turned positive year over year in the first quarter, rising 1.4%. Spot rates at RXO were up 9.1% year over year in Q1. Even so, for spot or contract rates, “a steep ramp upwards is unlikely,” RXO said. Highs and lows The Top 25 truckload carriers in the rankings represent a small fraction of the total number of truckload carriers. There were 53,705 long-distance truckload carriers in operation across the US in 2022, according to the latest US Economic Census, a five-year census of businesses in the US and a benchmark for economic activity. The census data, released in April, does not include one-truck owner-operators. Only 248 of the 53,705 carriers in the US Economic Census had more than 250 employees. From 2017 through 2022 – the last two economic censuses – the overall number of truckload providers increased 68.3%. The number of truckload firms with more than 250 employees increased 12.2% with the addition of just 27 carriers in that period. In that same five-year period, the number of firms with five employees or fewer increased by 70.1% to 26,941 companies. That reflects growth during the 2018 trucking boom and then the explosion of new carriers from 2020 through 2022. The Top 25 truckload carriers, all companies with more than $500 million in annual revenue, may be outnumbered by small carriers, but they haul large volumes of freight for large shippers, making them almost a separate industry sector of their own. The largest carriers in the rankings were J.B. Hunt Transport Services, with $4.1 billion in truckload-related revenue; Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, with $3.5 billion; and Schneider National, with $2.6 billion, according to SJ Consulting Group research. Last year was the second at the top of the rankings for those three companies, yet they each lost revenue compared with 2023. J.B. Hunt’s truckload revenue dropped 5.4%, Knight-Swift's truckload revenue, excluding US Xpress Enterprises, dropped 4%; and Schneider’s topline fell 3.3%, according to the data behind the rankings. Ryder System climbed from eighth in the rankings to fourth place, increasing its truckload-related revenue 37% year over year. The increase does not represent Ryder’s total revenue, which increased 7% last year, but its truckload-related revenue as defined by SJ Consulting Group. The acquisition of Cardinal Logistics in 2024 fueled that growth. Multiyear strategic initiatives also are driving Ryder’s growth, Robert E. Sanchez, chairman and CEO, told Wall Street analysts during a first-quarter earnings call in April. “The key driver of expected earnings growth in 2025 is incremental benefits...related to our contractual lease, dedicated, and supply chain businesses,” Sanchez said. Ups and downs In addition to Ryder, the Top 25 carriers that increased revenue last year included Covenant Transportation Group (6.6%), Stevens Transport (5%), Universal Truckload (3.9%) and PS Logistics (1.7%), according to SJ Consulting Group data. An underlying lesson from Ryder is that diversification can be an effective strategy in dealing with a soft freight market and cautious customers. Many of the truckload carriers in the Top 25 rankings are pursuing more dedicated business rather than one-way truckload, or even, in the case of Knight-Swift, breaking into the less-than-truckload (LTL) market. The company that lost the most in terms of revenue was Daseke, a specialized heavy-haul conglomerate owned by TFI International. Daseke’s revenue dropped 17.8% year over year to $1.1 billion, according to SJ Consulting Group, which attributed the decline to lower demand for infrastructure and industrial project work for specialized trucking. However, Daseke retained its position as the 12th largest carrier in the rankings, a sign of how much revenue the overall market and the Top 25 group lost in 2024. The 17 carriers that lost revenue in 2024 saw that revenue drop 9% on average in 2024. Still, the combined revenue of the Top 25 truckload carriers was higher than in any year before 2022. From 2020 through 2022, that combined revenue shot up 38.7% and then dropped 12.1% through 2024. Altogether, nine carriers moved lower in the rankings last year, while six moved higher, and seven retained their rankings. Three new companies joined or rejoined the Top 25: Covenant Transportation Group, Universal Truckload and Anderson Trucking Services. The base level of revenue needed to get into the rankings fell from $722 million in 2023 to $565 million last year, a 21.8% decline. That’s an indicator of the depth of the demand-driven malaise in the truckload market. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .Journal of Commerce Top 25 US Truckload Carriers Annual revenue, including fuel surcharges, in millions of US dollars 2024 Rank Carrier 2023 Revenue 2024 Revenue YoY Change 1 J.B. Hunt Transport Services $4,332 $4,097 -5.4% 2 Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings $3,683 $3,535 -4.0% 3 Schneider National $2,640 $2,552 -3.3% 4 Ryder System $1,785 $2,446 37.0% 5 Prime $2,524 $2,283 -9.5% 6 Penske Logistics $2,200 $2,230 1.4% 7 Werner Enterprises $2,282 $2,100 -8.0% 8 Landstar System $2,323 $2,075 -10.7% 9 U.S. Xpress Enterprises1 $1,698 $1,500 -11.7% 10 CRST International1 $1,668 $1,597 -4.3% 11 Crete Carrier Corp.1 $1,342 $1,346 0.3% 12 Daseke1 $1,277 $1,050 -17.8% 13 Western Express1 $1,054 $1,062 0.8% 14 Heartland Express $1,207 $1,048 -13.2% 15 PS Logistics $1,008 $1,025 1.7% 16 NFI Industries $1,100 $1,001 -9.0% 17 CR England $1,089 $1,000 -8.2% 18 Ruan Transportation1 $937 $900 -3.9% 19 Stevens Transport1 $765 $803 5.0% 20 Hirschbach Motor Lines $808 $777 -3.8% 21 Marten Transport $874 $759 -13.2% 22 Covenant Transportation Group $696 $742 6.6% 23 KLLM1 $867 $780 -10.0% 24 Universal Truckload $557 $579 3.9% 25 Anderson Trucking Service1 $675 $565 -16.3% Total Top 25 US Truckload carriers $39,391 $37,852 -3.9% 1 SJ Consulting estimates Sources: Company reports and SJ Consulting estimates. Prepared by SJ Consulting Group, Inc. © 2025 S&P Global.

Trucking News

Truckload

Surface

Journal of Commerce Rankings: Top 25 US truckload carriers still stuck in low gear

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The company’s deal for E2open shows it is betting it can thread the needle between keeping its customers happy while targeting the customers of those customers.</div>

The company’s deal for E2open shows it is betting it can thread the needle between keeping its customers happy while targeting the customers of those customers.

<div class="phx-topic">WiseTech Global, in spending $2.1 billion to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/wisetech-notches-biggest-acquisition-with-21-billion-deal-for-e2open-6011581">buy E2open this week</a>, is placing a massive bet that it can overcome three forces that have historically hindered major logistics software acquisitions. First, the history of large technology companies built on the back of minor acquisitions successfully integrating with another large company is incredibly small. For evidence of the difficulty in doing so, WiseTech need look no further than the very company it acquired. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/6013202_0.1.jpg"></img></div>E2open in the mid-2010s was a supply chain planning specialist catering to large multinational manufacturers. It then went on a five-year acquisition binge in the late 2010s and early 2020s, focused primarily on logistics and trade compliance technology, culminating in the $1.7 billion purchase of BluJay Solutions in 2021. The nesting doll of complexity that arose from that acquisition — with BluJay itself the combination of multiple software providers — certainly weighed heavily on E2open’s business. WiseTech’s model has been to buy, and buy frequently, but this gambit represents a bigger bite than the company has ever taken. <h3>Playing both sides </h3>A second force that the Australian company will have to reckon with is whether the deal to acquire E2open — whose tools are primarily aimed at shippers — will upset the relationship WiseTech has with its extensive third-party logistics provider (3PL) customer base. In its February first-half financial report, WiseTech said 24 of the top 25 global 3PLs now use the company’s products. While WiseTech is undoubtedly a critical backbone for these 3PLs, who use it for core functions like transportation management, trade compliance and accounting, there’s also no shortage of grumbling about the cost of the system, as well as the pace of integration and new product development. WiseTech spends a huge proportion of its operating profit on enhancing its platform each year, but the reality is that as a software company grows larger, the wants of the customer base often outpace the ability to satisfy those demands. Adding E2open, and its vast suites of products across supplier collaboration, planning, forecasting and logistics, only adds to the complexity. As WiseTech directly targets shippers, there’s the possibility that some 3PL customers grow weary of slow development timelines and wary of the software provider’s closer ties to their own customers. On the other hand, adding E2open’s product could allow WiseTech to bolster its shipper-focused service offerings to the benefit of those 3PLs. A good case in point is Infor Nexus, which began in the early 2000s as a platform aiming to disintermediate 3PLs by providing shippers with order management, global transportation management and visibility tools to replace the services they traditionally got from forwarders. In the end, Infor Nexus also became a supplier to 3PLs, enhancing their ability to serve shippers. Still, the E2open deal creates complexity and risk. <h3>Platform for all? </h3>Perhaps nowhere is that risk more evident than in the notion that software providers can cater effectively to all parties. In its statement about the E2open acquisition, WiseTech noted that the deal increases its total addressable market (TAM) by allowing it to reach into adjacent markets it never previously served. But building “software for everyone” has been a difficult needle to thread historically. While the logistics industry speaks glowingly about collaboration and win-win scenarios, the reality is more pragmatic. Shippers generally buy tools that give them leverage against their suppliers and transportation partners, and 3PLs do the same to give themselves leverage with carriers and shippers. There are examples of logistics software vendors selling products to multiple buyer categories — WiseTech competitor Descartes is a good example, as is Infor Nexus — but only when specific product lines are sold to specific types of buyers. But WiseTech doesn’t seem interested in that segmented sales approach. In the statement, the company said the deal “accelerates and deepens WiseTech’s plans to create a multi-sided marketplace connecting asset-based carriers, logistics providers, importers, exporters, shippers and many other logistics and supply chain participants.” If any company is equipped to build that marketplace, it’s likely WiseTech, whose strong position in the 3PL market will be enhanced by adding E2open’s network of carriers and intermediaries. But that doesn’t make the challenge any less daunting. By taking on $3 billion in debt (equivalent to roughly 13% of WiseTech’s market capitalization) to finance the E2open deal and other potential acquisitions, WiseTech has gambled that it can make a multi-headed hydra of software work, that it can keep its current customer base happy while chasing those customers’ customers, and that it can create an almost utopic marketplace with critical mass in a forever fragmented industry. Contact Eric Johnson at <a href="mailto:eric.johnson@spglobal.com">eric.johnson@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

WiseTech Global, in spending $2.1 billion to buy E2open this week , is placing a massive bet that it can overcome three forces that have historically hindered major logistics software acquisitions. First, the history of large technology companies built on the back of minor acquisitions successfully integrating with another large company is incredibly small. For evidence of the difficulty in doing so, WiseTech need look no further than the very company it acquired. E2open in the mid-2010s was a supply chain planning specialist catering to large multinational manufacturers. It then went on a five-year acquisition binge in the late 2010s and early 2020s, focused primarily on logistics and trade compliance technology, culminating in the $1.7 billion purchase of BluJay Solutions in 2021. The nesting doll of complexity that arose from that acquisition — with BluJay itself the combination of multiple software providers — certainly weighed heavily on E2open’s business. WiseTech’s model has been to buy, and buy frequently, but this gambit represents a bigger bite than the company has ever taken. Playing both sides A second force that the Australian company will have to reckon with is whether the deal to acquire E2open — whose tools are primarily aimed at shippers — will upset the relationship WiseTech has with its extensive third-party logistics provider (3PL) customer base. In its February first-half financial report, WiseTech said 24 of the top 25 global 3PLs now use the company’s products. While WiseTech is undoubtedly a critical backbone for these 3PLs, who use it for core functions like transportation management, trade compliance and accounting, there’s also no shortage of grumbling about the cost of the system, as well as the pace of integration and new product development. WiseTech spends a huge proportion of its operating profit on enhancing its platform each year, but the reality is that as a software company grows larger, the wants of the customer base often outpace the ability to satisfy those demands. Adding E2open, and its vast suites of products across supplier collaboration, planning, forecasting and logistics, only adds to the complexity. As WiseTech directly targets shippers, there’s the possibility that some 3PL customers grow weary of slow development timelines and wary of the software provider’s closer ties to their own customers. On the other hand, adding E2open’s product could allow WiseTech to bolster its shipper-focused service offerings to the benefit of those 3PLs. A good case in point is Infor Nexus, which began in the early 2000s as a platform aiming to disintermediate 3PLs by providing shippers with order management, global transportation management and visibility tools to replace the services they traditionally got from forwarders. In the end, Infor Nexus also became a supplier to 3PLs, enhancing their ability to serve shippers. Still, the E2open deal creates complexity and risk. Platform for all? Perhaps nowhere is that risk more evident than in the notion that software providers can cater effectively to all parties. In its statement about the E2open acquisition, WiseTech noted that the deal increases its total addressable market (TAM) by allowing it to reach into adjacent markets it never previously served. But building “software for everyone” has been a difficult needle to thread historically. While the logistics industry speaks glowingly about collaboration and win-win scenarios, the reality is more pragmatic. Shippers generally buy tools that give them leverage against their suppliers and transportation partners, and 3PLs do the same to give themselves leverage with carriers and shippers. There are examples of logistics software vendors selling products to multiple buyer categories — WiseTech competitor Descartes is a good example, as is Infor Nexus — but only when specific product lines are sold to specific types of buyers. But WiseTech doesn’t seem interested in that segmented sales approach. In the statement, the company said the deal “accelerates and deepens WiseTech’s plans to create a multi-sided marketplace connecting asset-based carriers, logistics providers, importers, exporters, shippers and many other logistics and supply chain participants.” If any company is equipped to build that marketplace, it’s likely WiseTech, whose strong position in the 3PL market will be enhanced by adding E2open’s network of carriers and intermediaries. But that doesn’t make the challenge any less daunting. By taking on $3 billion in debt (equivalent to roughly 13% of WiseTech’s market capitalization) to finance the E2open deal and other potential acquisitions, WiseTech has gambled that it can make a multi-headed hydra of software work, that it can keep its current customer base happy while chasing those customers’ customers, and that it can create an almost utopic marketplace with critical mass in a forever fragmented industry. Contact Eric Johnson at eric.johnson@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Logistics Technology News

WiseTech makes $2 billion gamble on overturning complicated software history

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A squeeze on the talent pipeline for the MPV and heavy-lift sectors means that competition for crew and captains is set to intensify.</div>

A squeeze on the talent pipeline for the MPV and heavy-lift sectors means that competition for crew and captains is set to intensify.

<div class="phx-topic">Finding crew for the ultra-specialized multipurpose vessel sector is becoming the industry’s biggest challenge, ship operators say. Speaking to the Journal of Commerce, Christophe Grammare, managing director of AAL Shipping, said that while there are captains available today to safely sail MPVs, the pipeline for that talent is a concern.Grammare said that the increasing complexity of MPV cargoes is raising the amount of knowledge needed for the crew to safely deliver the load. While existing MPV masters have help from onshore engineers, it is getting “harder to find the new generation of younger captains to... go to sea and... to turn away from the traditional container side,” he said.While MPV operators have access to specialized training, the fundamental lack of incoming talent means that companies in this “specialized elite sector are fighting for a small pool of qualified people,” Grammare said, adding that increasingly complex cargoes exacerbate the problem. “This pushes us up to a higher level of technical knowledge,” he said. Kyriacos Panayides, CEO of AAL Shipping, described the availability of quality officers and crew as “the biggest threat” to the MPV industry.But it is not just crews that are suffering from a lack of talent coming through the pipeline in the multipurpose and heavy-lift sector. Elisabeth Cosmatos, CEO of Cosmatos Group and president of The Heavy Lift Group (THLG), said that young people associate the heavy-lift logistics industry as “early gray hair on the head because it's so stressful and the hours are terrible.”The Heavy Lift Group is an international group of specialized heavy transport companies.“We need to change the narrative,” she said. “The industry is diverse. You get to travel and experience different cultures. This sort of profession gives you the opportunity to do daily problem-solving, too.”Cosmatos said all THLG members are facing the same issues. “We need the right people with a willingness to learn,” she said.Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Finding crew for the ultra-specialized multipurpose vessel sector is becoming the industry’s biggest challenge, ship operators say. Speaking to the Journal of Commerce, Christophe Grammare, managing director of AAL Shipping, said that while there are captains available today to safely sail MPVs, the pipeline for that talent is a concern. Grammare said that the increasing complexity of MPV cargoes is raising the amount of knowledge needed for the crew to safely deliver the load. While existing MPV masters have help from onshore engineers, it is getting “harder to find the new generation of younger captains to... go to sea and... to turn away from the traditional container side,” he said. While MPV operators have access to specialized training, the fundamental lack of incoming talent means that companies in this “specialized elite sector are fighting for a small pool of qualified people,” Grammare said, adding that increasingly complex cargoes exacerbate the problem. “This pushes us up to a higher level of technical knowledge,” he said. Kyriacos Panayides, CEO of AAL Shipping, described the availability of quality officers and crew as “the biggest threat” to the MPV industry. But it is not just crews that are suffering from a lack of talent coming through the pipeline in the multipurpose and heavy-lift sector. Elisabeth Cosmatos, CEO of Cosmatos Group and president of The Heavy Lift Group (THLG), said that young people associate the heavy-lift logistics industry as “early gray hair on the head because it's so stressful and the hours are terrible.” The Heavy Lift Group is an international group of specialized heavy transport companies. “We need to change the narrative,” she said. “The industry is diverse. You get to travel and experience different cultures. This sort of profession gives you the opportunity to do daily problem-solving, too.” Cosmatos said all THLG members are facing the same issues. “We need the right people with a willingness to learn,” she said. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Heavy-haul transport

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Crew availability ‘biggest threat’ to multipurpose ship sector

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Whether the expected capacity injection on tap for June is enough to stem further rate increases remains unclear.</div>

Whether the expected capacity injection on tap for June is enough to stem further rate increases remains unclear.

<div class="phx-topic">Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are adding a new trans-Pacific express service to the US West Coast, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. looks to restart a suspended East Coast service. The moves signal new confidence about trans-Pacific demand as rates continue to strengthen going into June. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd said in statements Monday that the Gemini Cooperation vessel-sharing agreement between them would offer a new express service connecting China and South Korea to the West Coast, branded respectively as the TP9/WC6. The first voyage from Xiamen, China, will take place June 24 on the 4,622-TEU Rhone Maersk, with subsequent calls at Busan and Long Beach. The Gemini partners said the service would offer an 18-day transit from Xiamen to Long Beach. The new Gemini service launches after a two-month turnaround in trans-Pacific shipping demand that saw ocean <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/asia-us-blank-sailing-forecast-for-may-increasing-amid-cancellations-5988996">carriers quickly remove ships</a> after President Donald Trump’s tariffs on China halted container bookings, then rapidly restore capacity amid the 90-day tariff reprieve that expires in mid-August. The demand whipsaw over that time has <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/eastbound-trans-pac-spot-rates-in-revival-mode-in-wake-of-us-china-trade-deal-6004803">almost doubled spot freight rates</a> from China to the West Coast. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, assessed North Asia to US West Coast container freight rates at $3,840 per FEU as of May 23, up from $1,960 per FEU on April 11. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7536dc3e-05bb-456c-bdd0-bcc5c4f332a4"></dynamic-object></div>June is expected to see the most container ship capacity in the trans-Pacific since last November, according to data from ocean visibility provider eeSea. It expects 1.268 million TEUs of vessel capacity between Asia and the US West Coast next month, up 34,000 TEUs from May. The amount of “blanked” capacity removed from the market will be 113,234 TEUs, the lowest since June 2024. <h3>‘Sufficient space available’ </h3>Whether the expected capacity injection for June will be enough to stem further rate increases remains unclear. A US-based executive for a Taiwanese ocean carrier told the Journal of Commerce that because some ships have been repositioned to serve other trade lanes, it will be early July before he expects meaningful capacity additions to affect the trans-Pacific market. However, Alphaliner analyst Tan Hua Joo told the Journal of Commerce some carriers, such as Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, are in a better position to respond to resurgent demand because they did not remove ships during the recent turmoil. Other carriers may also be better able to add capacity quickly to the trans-Pacific market. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="672dcba4-2aca-447a-9d9e-a3c419bbb174"></dynamic-object></div>“I expect there will be sufficient space available in the market as trans-Pacific capacity will return very quickly and all carriers are adding ships over the next three weeks, apart from the Gemini carriers who have not withdrawn any ships from the trans-Pacific during the turmoil of the last five weeks,” Hua Joo said. Along with the trans-Pacific West Coast, the US East Coast should also see more ships in service by June. MSC appears ready for a mid-June restart of its Empire service from north China to the East Coast after announcing a suspension of the service in early May amid the demand downturn. According to MSC’s vessel schedule, the Empire service will offer direct voyages from Shanghai to the Port of New York and New Jersey starting with the June 18 departure of the 6,730-TEU MSC Barbara. There are six other ships nominated for weekly departures on the service through the end of July. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd are adding a new trans-Pacific express service to the US West Coast, while Mediterranean Shipping Co. looks to restart a suspended East Coast service. The moves signal new confidence about trans-Pacific demand as rates continue to strengthen going into June. Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd said in statements Monday that the Gemini Cooperation vessel-sharing agreement between them would offer a new express service connecting China and South Korea to the West Coast, branded respectively as the TP9/WC6. The first voyage from Xiamen, China, will take place June 24 on the 4,622-TEU Rhone Maersk, with subsequent calls at Busan and Long Beach. The Gemini partners said the service would offer an 18-day transit from Xiamen to Long Beach. The new Gemini service launches after a two-month turnaround in trans-Pacific shipping demand that saw ocean carriers quickly remove ships after President Donald Trump’s tariffs on China halted container bookings, then rapidly restore capacity amid the 90-day tariff reprieve that expires in mid-August. The demand whipsaw over that time has almost doubled spot freight rates from China to the West Coast. Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, assessed North Asia to US West Coast container freight rates at $3,840 per FEU as of May 23, up from $1,960 per FEU on April 11. June is expected to see the most container ship capacity in the trans-Pacific since last November, according to data from ocean visibility provider eeSea. It expects 1.268 million TEUs of vessel capacity between Asia and the US West Coast next month, up 34,000 TEUs from May. The amount of “blanked” capacity removed from the market will be 113,234 TEUs, the lowest since June 2024. ‘Sufficient space available’ Whether the expected capacity injection for June will be enough to stem further rate increases remains unclear. A US-based executive for a Taiwanese ocean carrier told the Journal of Commerce that because some ships have been repositioned to serve other trade lanes, it will be early July before he expects meaningful capacity additions to affect the trans-Pacific market. However, Alphaliner analyst Tan Hua Joo told the Journal of Commerce some carriers, such as Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd, are in a better position to respond to resurgent demand because they did not remove ships during the recent turmoil. Other carriers may also be better able to add capacity quickly to the trans-Pacific market. “I expect there will be sufficient space available in the market as trans-Pacific capacity will return very quickly and all carriers are adding ships over the next three weeks, apart from the Gemini carriers who have not withdrawn any ships from the trans-Pacific during the turmoil of the last five weeks,” Hua Joo said. Along with the trans-Pacific West Coast, the US East Coast should also see more ships in service by June. MSC appears ready for a mid-June restart of its Empire service from north China to the East Coast after announcing a suspension of the service in early May amid the demand downturn. According to MSC’s vessel schedule, the Empire service will offer direct voyages from Shanghai to the Port of New York and New Jersey starting with the June 18 departure of the 6,730-TEU MSC Barbara. There are six other ships nominated for weekly departures on the service through the end of July. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

Ocean carriers bring in more trans-Pacific container services amid rate surge

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The facility, the carrier’s first investment in northern Vietnam, will have a combined capacity of 1.9 million TEUs when operational in 2028. </div>

The facility, the carrier’s first investment in northern Vietnam, will have a combined capacity of 1.9 million TEUs when operational in 2028.

<div class="phx-topic">French shipping giant CMA CGM has extended its terminal network in Vietnam after signing a $600 million deal with Saigon Newport Corporation to build and operate a deepwater container terminal complex in Haiphong in northern Vietnam. The agreement, inked Monday on the sidelines of an official visit to Vietnam by French President Emmanuel Macron, covers the design, construction and operation of terminals 7 and 8 at Haiphong’s Lach Huyen deepwater port. The terminals, CMA CGM’s first investment in northern Vietnam, will have a combined capacity of 1.9 million TEUs when operational in 2028. The facility will complement CMA CGM’s two existing co-owned terminals in southern Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City and Cai Mep. CMA CGM said the Haiphong facility will help it secure long-term container handling capacity amid a strong increase in container volumes, adding it has 29 weekly services calling at ports in Vietnam. The Haiphong project is part of a wider investment by CMA CGM in Vietnam after it launched an electric barge service in December between Binh Duong and its terminal at Cai Mep to transport Nike sports products. CMA CGM’s terminal agreement also comes just weeks after APM Terminals, in a joint venture with Vietnamese logistics and real estate group HATECO, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/apm-enhances-partnership-for-ultra-large-container-terminal-at-haiphong-port-5244608">opened terminals 5 and 6 at Lach Huyen on April 5</a>. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

French shipping giant CMA CGM has extended its terminal network in Vietnam after signing a $600 million deal with Saigon Newport Corporation to build and operate a deepwater container terminal complex in Haiphong in northern Vietnam. The agreement, inked Monday on the sidelines of an official visit to Vietnam by French President Emmanuel Macron, covers the design, construction and operation of terminals 7 and 8 at Haiphong’s Lach Huyen deepwater port. The terminals, CMA CGM’s first investment in northern Vietnam, will have a combined capacity of 1.9 million TEUs when operational in 2028. The facility will complement CMA CGM’s two existing co-owned terminals in southern Vietnam in Ho Chi Minh City and Cai Mep. CMA CGM said the Haiphong facility will help it secure long-term container handling capacity amid a strong increase in container volumes, adding it has 29 weekly services calling at ports in Vietnam. The Haiphong project is part of a wider investment by CMA CGM in Vietnam after it launched an electric barge service in December between Binh Duong and its terminal at Cai Mep to transport Nike sports products. CMA CGM’s terminal agreement also comes just weeks after APM Terminals, in a joint venture with Vietnamese logistics and real estate group HATECO, opened terminals 5 and 6 at Lach Huyen on April 5 . Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Maritime

Port News

Port infrastructure

Marine terminals

International ports

CMA CGM signs deal to develop $600 million Haiphong terminal complex

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

MEMORIAL DAY SALE

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Upgrade Subscription

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


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

Monthly publication providing an editorial deep dive into global supply chain news

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The latest container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology solutions and end-to-end connectivity. Coverage includes the movement of containerized cargo handled by marine terminals and container ports, depots, container lines, drayage, consignees, importers and shippers, forwarders, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs) and off-dock warehousing providers. The Journal of Commerce's container shipping news includes news from the trans-Pacific, Asia–Europe, North America–Caribbean, Central and South America trades, and intra-Asia trades.

Trans-Atlantic

Forwarding

Asia-Europe

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

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

Container Shipping News

Breakbulk News shipping | 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

Breakbulk Quarterly

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

More News & Analysis

Journal of Commerce Rankings: Top 25 US truckload carriers still stuck in low gear

WiseTech makes $2 billion gamble on overturning complicated software history

Crew availability ‘biggest threat’ to multipurpose ship sector