<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The New York foreign exchange rates below, provided by Reuter Money Service, are selling rates among</div>

The New York foreign exchange rates below, provided by Reuter Money Service, are selling rates among

<div>The New York foreign exchange rates below, provided by Reuter Money Service, are selling rates among trading banks of $1 million and more as quoted early afternoon in New York. Retail transactions provide fewer units of foreign currency per dollar. Foreign currency values are expressed in terms of currency units per dollar unless otherwise noted. To obtain the comparable dollar value, for those rates not quoted in dollars, divide into one. For example, when one U.S. dollar buys 6.9075 French francs, one dollar divided by 6.9075 francs equals $.1448 or 14.48 U.S. cents per franc.Thursday, May 22, 1997 Thur. Wed.*U.K....

The New York foreign exchange rates below, provided by Reuter Money Service, are selling rates among trading banks of $1 million and more as quoted early afternoon in New York. Retail transactions provide fewer units of foreign currency per dollar. Foreign currency values are expressed in terms of currency units per dollar unless otherwise noted. To obtain the comparable dollar value, for those rates not quoted in dollars, divide into one. For example, when one U.S. dollar buys 6.9075 French francs, one dollar divided by 6.9075 francs equals $.1448 or 14.48 U.S. cents per franc. Thursday, May 22, 1997 Thur. Wed. *U.K. (Pound) 1.6269 1.6448 30 days 1.6258 1.6438 60 days 1.6249 1.6429 90 days 1.6240 1.6419 CANADA (Dollar) 1.3725 1.3659 30 days 1.3695 1.3628 60 days 1.3666 1.3600 90 days 1.3636 1.3572 NETHERLANDS (Guilder) 1.9038 1.9021 30 days 1.8998 1.8980 60 days 1.8955 1.8939 90 days 1.8915 1.8893 SWITZERLAND (Franc) 1.4125 1.4073 30 days 1.4075 1.4024 60 days 1.4025 1.3976 90 days 1.3977 1.3923 GERMANY (Mark) 1.6935 1.6920 30 days 1.6899 1.6884 60 days 1.6861 1.6847 90 days 1.6824 1.6807 FRANCE (Franc) 5.7015 5.7007 30 days 5.6901 5.6892 60 days 5.6788 5.6779 90 days 5.6678 5.6660 JAPAN (Yen) 115.70 114.01 30 days 115.19 113.51 60 days 114.67 113.01 90 days 114.16 112.47 OTHER EUROPEAN Thur. Wed. AUSTRIA (Schilling) 11.9115 11.9230 BELGIUM (Franc) 34.976 34.920 DENMARK (Krone) 6.4511 6.4410 FINLAND (Markka) 5.1020 5.1050 GREECE (Drachma) 270.08 268.96 Thur. Wed. ITALY (Lira) 1668.00 1664.80 NORWAY (Krone) 7.0416 7.0286 PORTUGAL (Escudo) 170.70 170.45 SPAIN (Peseta) 142.76 142.62 SWEDEN (Krona) 7.6045 7.5345 ASIAN AND OTHER COUNTRIES *AUSTRALIA (Dollar) 0.7770 0.7836 HONG KONG (Dollar) 7.7360 7.7370 INDIA (Rupee) 35.740 35.760 INDONESIAN (Rupiah) 2441.00 2442.00 ISRAEL (Shekel) 3.3402 3.3376 *KUWAIT (Dinar) 0.30200 0.30132 LEBANON (Pound) 1537.50 1537.50 MALAYSIA (Ringgit) 2.5020 2.5000 *N. ZEALAND (Dollar) 0.6930 0.6953 PAKISTAN (Rupee) N.A. 40.2897 PHILIPPINES (Peso) 26.360 26.355 SAUDI ARABIA (Riyal) 3.7505 3.7504 SINGAPORE (Dollar) 1.4310 1.4305 S. AFRICA (Rand) 4.4680 4.4565 S. KOREA (Won) 889.00 888.50 *SPEC. DRAWING RIGHT 1.39540 1.40215 TAIWAN (Dollar) 27.780 27.780 THAILAND (Baht) 25.55 25.02 TURKEY (Lira) 138750 138530 LATIN AMERICA ARGENTINA (Peso) 0.9986 0.9986 BRAZIL (Real) 1.0400 1.0400 CHILE (Peso) 418.45 418.80 COLOMBIA (Peso) 917.66 914.05 MEXICO (N Peso) 7.7146 7.7333 PERU (New Sol) 2.6497 2.6447 VENEZUELA (Bolivar) 483.50 483.75 GOLD Price per oz. Thur. Wed. LONDON, 2nd fixing 342.50 342.40 *These currencies are expressed in dollars per unit. CUSTOMS RATES Federal Reserve Bank of New York certified buying rates for certain foreign currencies to be used for customs purposes or appropriate cases. Thursday, May 22, 1997 Country Rate *AUSTRALIA (Dollar) 0.7795 AUSTRIA (Shilling) 11.9330 BELGIUM (Franc) 35.0000 BRAZIL (Real) 1.0702 CANADA (Dollar) 1.3717 CHINA (Yuan) 8.3223 DENMARK (Krone) 6.4560 *EUR. CUR. UNIT (ECU) 1.1510 FINLAND (Markka) 5.1130 FRANCE (franc) 5.7110 GERMANY (Mark) 1.6943 GREECE (Drachma) 270.3000 HONG KONG (Dollar) 7.7375 INDIA (Rupee) 35.7900 *IRELAND (pound) 1.5100 ISRAEL Shekel) N.A. ITALY (Lira) 1668.20 JAPAN (Yen) 115.960 MALAYSIA (Dollar) 2.5030 Country Rate MEXICO (Peso) 7.8700 NETHERLANDS (Guilder) 1.9055 *NEW ZEALAND (Dollar) 0.6935 NORWAY (Krone) 7.0550 PHILIPPINES (Peso) N.A. PORTUGAL (Escudo) 170.9000 SINGAPORE (Dollar) 1.4315 SOUTH AFRICA (Rand) 4.4710 SOUTH KOREA (Won) 894.000 SPAIN (Peseta) 142.850 SRI LANKA (Rupee) 58.6000 SWEDEN (Krona) 7.6050 SWITZERLAND (franc) 1.4145 TAIWAN (Dollar) 27.8300 THAILAND (Baht) 25.7400 *UNITED KINGDOM (Pound) 1.6235 VENEZUELA (Bolivar) 484.7500 *These currencies are expressed in dollars per unit.

FOREIGN EXCHANGE

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While there’s no strong demand trigger for LTL freight on the horizon, providers continue to add terminals and lanes to growing networks. </div>

While there’s no strong demand trigger for LTL freight on the horizon, providers continue to add terminals and lanes to growing networks.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">US freight demand is declining, but less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers keep building, adding terminals and lanes at a time when they might be expected to rein in expansion plans. Instead of hedging against uncertainty, LTL trucking companies say they are positioning themselves for the upswing in freight demand they hope will come sometime this year. “For the first time in decades, nobody is seeing the traditional March peak for LTL,” Chris Jamroz, CEO of Roadrunner, told the Journal of Commerce. “It used to be that anybody who had a pulse could deliver a great result in LTL in March.” Not this year. Four of the top 10 publicly owned LTL companies reported declines in shipments and tonnage in January and February, with only one, Saia, reporting gains, with shipments rising 5.5% -- almost certainly market share gains from competitors. Shipments at FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider, fell 4.7% year over year in the quarter that ended Feb. 28. Shipments were down 5.9% from a year ago at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) in January and February, and 6.2% lower at XPO in February. Shipments per day were down 1% in January and February at ABF Freight System, but the ArcBest subsidiary’s tonnage slipped 6%, according to its mid-quarter report. ABF in February began hauling more heavy-weight truckload-rated shipments to bolster its volumes.The Cass Freight Shipments Index, a broad measure of freight volume that blends LTL, truckload and rail shipments, was down 5.5% year over year in February, and 9.5% from two years ago. The annualized decline was 8.2% in January. Although data for early March isn’t available yet, LTL executives and shippers point to little change in freight demand. LTL executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce but did not want to be identified say freight volumes were down by low single-digit percentages from a year ago. Those executives are still optimistic, though, partly because they are winning contractual rate hikes, as they have been since <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-ltl-sector-growth-efficiencies-still-fueled-by-loss-of-yellow-5715785">bankrupt LTL provider Yellow collapsed</a> in 2023. The US long-haul LTL producer price index (PPI) rose 6.3% from a year ago in January and 6.1% in February. The measure of all-inclusive LTL selling prices is now at its highest point ever, having recovered from a 12% slide between June 2022 and April 2023. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="eea5e7a8-7e1e-4d7c-9068-ac1fc2db0a5e"></dynamic-object></div>The LTL PPI is now 12.3% higher than it was when Yellow shut down in July 2023. That makes it easier for LTL carriers to begin building toward a demand recovery. “We still see a soft domestic economy, but it feels like it’s improving,” Adam Satterfield, CFO of Old Dominion Freight Line, told the Journal of Commerce. “Sequentially, we saw shipments and tonnage improve more than average from January to February.” <h3>Larger, denser LTL networks</h3>ODFL spent $664 million over the past two years on its service center network – without buying terminals from Yellow. “We continue to add capacity,” said Satterfield. “Capacity is an important part of the equation in the first year of an economic inflection.” After two slow years, ODFL has “more excess capacity than we’ve ever had,” at about 30%, Satterfield said. “But we still have a robust capex plan,” he added. “Investing in new service centers is a key part of our strategy, and we want to stay ahead of the curve.” ODFL opened four facilities in 2024 and has several service centers under construction that can be opened when the market heats up, he said. Other carriers, including regional LTL providers Dayton Freight Lines, A. Duie Pyle and Averitt <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ltl-carriers-expanding-networks-to-prepare-for-long-term-growth-5915148">are opening or expanding service centers</a> to gain greater freight density and expand next-day and same-day service. Yellow continues to sell the last of its terminals. There’s still less LTL capacity available than there was before Yellow’s exit, Satterfield said. That’s helping to keep LTL pricing elevated. Roadrunner, which is leasing a former Yellow terminal in Atlanta, one of its network hubs, last week expanded by adding 278 lanes, its largest expansion since its current restructuring began in 2021. One-third of those 278 new lanes are more than 1,000 miles long, originating at the company’s hubs in Atlanta, Detroit, Nashville, Tenn.; Cleveland and Grand Rapids, Mich. The new lanes aren’t a reaction to rising demand, however; they’re all about prepositioning for coming demand. LTL carriers are also prepping for the eventual spinoff of FedEx Freight as an independent carrier in 2026 and a possible LTL play by Amazon. “We’re at the bottom of the trough, but we will go up, and we want to be positioned to respond to shippers very fast,” Jamroz said. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a> </div>

US freight demand is declining, but less-than-truckload (LTL) carriers keep building, adding terminals and lanes at a time when they might be expected to rein in expansion plans. Instead of hedging against uncertainty, LTL trucking companies say they are positioning themselves for the upswing in freight demand they hope will come sometime this year. “For the first time in decades, nobody is seeing the traditional March peak for LTL,” Chris Jamroz, CEO of Roadrunner, told the Journal of Commerce. “It used to be that anybody who had a pulse could deliver a great result in LTL in March.” Not this year. Four of the top 10 publicly owned LTL companies reported declines in shipments and tonnage in January and February, with only one, Saia, reporting gains, with shipments rising 5.5% -- almost certainly market share gains from competitors. Shipments at FedEx Freight, the largest US LTL provider, fell 4.7% year over year in the quarter that ended Feb. 28. Shipments were down 5.9% from a year ago at Old Dominion Freight Line (ODFL) in January and February, and 6.2% lower at XPO in February. Shipments per day were down 1% in January and February at ABF Freight System, but the ArcBest subsidiary’s tonnage slipped 6%, according to its mid-quarter report. ABF in February began hauling more heavy-weight truckload-rated shipments to bolster its volumes. The Cass Freight Shipments Index, a broad measure of freight volume that blends LTL, truckload and rail shipments, was down 5.5% year over year in February, and 9.5% from two years ago. The annualized decline was 8.2% in January. Although data for early March isn’t available yet, LTL executives and shippers point to little change in freight demand. LTL executives who spoke with the Journal of Commerce but did not want to be identified say freight volumes were down by low single-digit percentages from a year ago. Those executives are still optimistic, though, partly because they are winning contractual rate hikes, as they have been since bankrupt LTL provider Yellow collapsed in 2023. The US long-haul LTL producer price index (PPI) rose 6.3% from a year ago in January and 6.1% in February. The measure of all-inclusive LTL selling prices is now at its highest point ever, having recovered from a 12% slide between June 2022 and April 2023. The LTL PPI is now 12.3% higher than it was when Yellow shut down in July 2023. That makes it easier for LTL carriers to begin building toward a demand recovery. “We still see a soft domestic economy, but it feels like it’s improving,” Adam Satterfield, CFO of Old Dominion Freight Line, told the Journal of Commerce. “Sequentially, we saw shipments and tonnage improve more than average from January to February.” Larger, denser LTL networks ODFL spent $664 million over the past two years on its service center network – without buying terminals from Yellow. “We continue to add capacity,” said Satterfield. “Capacity is an important part of the equation in the first year of an economic inflection.” After two slow years, ODFL has “more excess capacity than we’ve ever had,” at about 30%, Satterfield said. “But we still have a robust capex plan,” he added. “Investing in new service centers is a key part of our strategy, and we want to stay ahead of the curve.” ODFL opened four facilities in 2024 and has several service centers under construction that can be opened when the market heats up, he said. Other carriers, including regional LTL providers Dayton Freight Lines, A. Duie Pyle and Averitt are opening or expanding service centers to gain greater freight density and expand next-day and same-day service. Yellow continues to sell the last of its terminals. There’s still less LTL capacity available than there was before Yellow’s exit, Satterfield said. That’s helping to keep LTL pricing elevated. Roadrunner, which is leasing a former Yellow terminal in Atlanta, one of its network hubs, last week expanded by adding 278 lanes, its largest expansion since its current restructuring began in 2021. One-third of those 278 new lanes are more than 1,000 miles long, originating at the company’s hubs in Atlanta, Detroit, Nashville, Tenn.; Cleveland and Grand Rapids, Mich. The new lanes aren’t a reaction to rising demand, however; they’re all about prepositioning for coming demand. LTL carriers are also prepping for the eventual spinoff of FedEx Freight as an independent carrier in 2026 and a possible LTL play by Amazon. “We’re at the bottom of the trough, but we will go up, and we want to be positioned to respond to shippers very fast,” Jamroz said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com

Trucking News

Surface

US LTL getting in position for higher freight demand – when it comes

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Why the impact is so potentially profound is the way carriers would likely respond to a scenario where a fuel standard is imposed on them, but no automatically higher cost is imposed on shippers to pay, writes Peter Tirschwell.</div>

Why the impact is so potentially profound is the way carriers would likely respond to a scenario where a fuel standard is imposed on them, but no automatically higher cost is imposed on shippers to pay, writes Peter Tirschwell.

<div class="phx-topic">What happens at the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine and Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in early April will have profound implications for shippers, dwarfing the impact, for example, of proposed fines on Chinese ships calling at US ports. The reason is the possibility, if not the likelihood, that IMO negotiators will fail to agree to a meaningful carbon tax on shipping, instead choosing to achieve its goal of net-zero emissions by or around 2050 via a fuel standard. IMO-watchers say the standard is all but certain to gain the necessary support of member states in April. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5968479_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Opposition by certain powerful member states to a fuel levy makes it “exceedingly unlikely” that the tax will be part of the final MEPC agreement, Eirik Nyhus, environment director at the classification society DNV, said on a recent podcast. Here is why that is critical: A fuel standard mandating a reduction in carbon intensity over time to reach the 2050 goal is similar conceptually to the IMO 2020 low-sulfur fuel requirement. The message to shipowners was, and would be again: “Here’s the requirement, and if it means higher fuel costs it’s on you to mitigate those costs or pass higher costs on to your customers.” That is why, according to S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence, 25% of container ships are now fitted with scrubbers that remove sulfur from vessel emissions while enabling ships to run on traditional bunkers versus higher-cost low sulfur fuel oil. The message to the industry would be identical if the IMO failed to reach consensus on a carbon tax, which is controversial among IMO member states, and proceeded with a fuel standard-type regulation to put teeth behind its 2050 goal. The showdown will occur at the 83rd MEPC meeting on April 7-11. <h3>How would carriers respond to a fuel standard? </h3>A fuel standard, on the other hand, is not seen as controversial. “There appears to be broad support across the numerous member states that we will agree to a legally binding greenhouse gas intensity limit for the fuels themselves which would take effect in 2028 and become increasingly become stringent as you move to 2050,” Bryan Wood-Thomas, vice president for environmental policy at the World Shipping Council (WSC), told TPM25 in early March. Why the impact is so potentially profound is the way carriers would likely respond to a scenario where a fuel standard is imposed on them – to increasingly use fuels that at least today are much higher priced than traditional bunkers – but no automatically higher cost is imposed on shippers to pay. Carriers would have no choice but to go all-out to protect their interests, which practically speaking means flexing their muscles on capacity to keep the market as tight as possible, and rates as high as possible, to offset the higher cost of zero- or low-carbon bunkers. That is increasingly familiar territory for carriers. The trajectory of the past 25 years of container shipping shows carriers steadily ratcheting up capacity management through their own actions – slow steaming, idling, blank sailings, scrapping – increasingly aided by external phenomenon in the form of pandemics, geopolitics and climate change. “Since 2019, carriers have built a revenue model around inefficiency,” said Peter Creeden, a longtime senior Hamburg Sud operations executive now leading Sydney-based consultant MPC International. “Their focus is not on supply chain efficiency but on leveraging inefficiencies to sustain profitability." <h3>‘Dependent on customers to...pay for’ energy transition </h3>The incentive for carriers to act to mitigate periodic waves of overcapacity is clear: Costs of alternative fuels will be higher for longer because major energy producers have made it clear that in the absence of a fuel tax – what they consider to be a bona fide demand signal – they will limit investments in production capacity. The possibility that methanol prices would remain high due to a high level of uncertainty regarding regulation, said Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/maersks-lng-order-hedges-bet-on-green-fuel-technology-ceo-5703200">led the company last year to pivot its fleet renewal to LNG ships</a>, a fuel it had long disparaged as inadequate in the energy transition. Underlying the need of carriers to ensure market advantage to fund any IMO-mandated energy transition is a lack of uptake from shippers to fund the transition themselves. Maersk Chairman Robert Uggla told shareholders on March 18 it is “clear that we are dependent on customers to support and pay for” the energy transition, and that “the biggest challenge....we face (is) the cost gap between clean and traditional fuels.” Without the cost gap being closed or narrowed – the point of a fuel tax – the uptake among customers is, and will likely continue to be, limited. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen, meanwhile, has reported progress with the carrier’s biofuel-based sustainability product Ship Green that allows shippers to decarbonize 25%, 50% or 100% of what they move with the liner. Volumes last year doubled to 200,000 TEUs, or 1.6% of the carrier’s total volume. Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com.</a>Senior editor Greg Knowler contributed to this analysis. </div>

What happens at the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine and Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) meeting in early April will have profound implications for shippers, dwarfing the impact, for example, of proposed fines on Chinese ships calling at US ports. The reason is the possibility, if not the likelihood, that IMO negotiators will fail to agree to a meaningful carbon tax on shipping, instead choosing to achieve its goal of net-zero emissions by or around 2050 via a fuel standard. IMO-watchers say the standard is all but certain to gain the necessary support of member states in April. Opposition by certain powerful member states to a fuel levy makes it “exceedingly unlikely” that the tax will be part of the final MEPC agreement, Eirik Nyhus, environment director at the classification society DNV, said on a recent podcast. Here is why that is critical: A fuel standard mandating a reduction in carbon intensity over time to reach the 2050 goal is similar conceptually to the IMO 2020 low-sulfur fuel requirement. The message to shipowners was, and would be again: “Here’s the requirement, and if it means higher fuel costs it’s on you to mitigate those costs or pass higher costs on to your customers.” That is why, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence, 25% of container ships are now fitted with scrubbers that remove sulfur from vessel emissions while enabling ships to run on traditional bunkers versus higher-cost low sulfur fuel oil. The message to the industry would be identical if the IMO failed to reach consensus on a carbon tax, which is controversial among IMO member states, and proceeded with a fuel standard-type regulation to put teeth behind its 2050 goal. The showdown will occur at the 83rd MEPC meeting on April 7-11. How would carriers respond to a fuel standard? A fuel standard, on the other hand, is not seen as controversial. “There appears to be broad support across the numerous member states that we will agree to a legally binding greenhouse gas intensity limit for the fuels themselves which would take effect in 2028 and become increasingly become stringent as you move to 2050,” Bryan Wood-Thomas, vice president for environmental policy at the World Shipping Council (WSC), told TPM25 in early March. Why the impact is so potentially profound is the way carriers would likely respond to a scenario where a fuel standard is imposed on them – to increasingly use fuels that at least today are much higher priced than traditional bunkers – but no automatically higher cost is imposed on shippers to pay. Carriers would have no choice but to go all-out to protect their interests, which practically speaking means flexing their muscles on capacity to keep the market as tight as possible, and rates as high as possible, to offset the higher cost of zero- or low-carbon bunkers. That is increasingly familiar territory for carriers. The trajectory of the past 25 years of container shipping shows carriers steadily ratcheting up capacity management through their own actions – slow steaming, idling, blank sailings, scrapping – increasingly aided by external phenomenon in the form of pandemics, geopolitics and climate change. “Since 2019, carriers have built a revenue model around inefficiency,” said Peter Creeden, a longtime senior Hamburg Sud operations executive now leading Sydney-based consultant MPC International. “Their focus is not on supply chain efficiency but on leveraging inefficiencies to sustain profitability." ‘Dependent on customers to...pay for’ energy transition The incentive for carriers to act to mitigate periodic waves of overcapacity is clear: Costs of alternative fuels will be higher for longer because major energy producers have made it clear that in the absence of a fuel tax – what they consider to be a bona fide demand signal – they will limit investments in production capacity. The possibility that methanol prices would remain high due to a high level of uncertainty regarding regulation, said Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc, led the company last year to pivot its fleet renewal to LNG ships , a fuel it had long disparaged as inadequate in the energy transition. Underlying the need of carriers to ensure market advantage to fund any IMO-mandated energy transition is a lack of uptake from shippers to fund the transition themselves. Maersk Chairman Robert Uggla told shareholders on March 18 it is “clear that we are dependent on customers to support and pay for” the energy transition, and that “the biggest challenge....we face (is) the cost gap between clean and traditional fuels.” Without the cost gap being closed or narrowed – the point of a fuel tax – the uptake among customers is, and will likely continue to be, limited. Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen, meanwhile, has reported progress with the carrier’s biofuel-based sustainability product Ship Green that allows shippers to decarbonize 25%, 50% or 100% of what they move with the liner. Volumes last year doubled to 200,000 TEUs, or 1.6% of the carrier’s total volume. Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com. Senior editor Greg Knowler contributed to this analysis.

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Container lines

Maritime

Likelihood of IMO fuel standard set to reshape container shipping market

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Cosco said changes in the shipping alliances this year will trigger competition in digitization and decarbonization.</div>

Cosco said changes in the shipping alliances this year will trigger competition in digitization and decarbonization.

<div class="phx-topic">Cosco Shipping Holdings said Friday that the industry will experience “profound changes in global cargo flow patterns” due to tariff- and trade-related policies after reporting strong profits in 2024. Container shipping demand growth is set to moderate this year, the carrier said, thanks to the combined effects of an easing of “global inflationary pressures and accommodative monetary policies in Europe and the United States.” The carrier, the fourth-largest by tonnage, according to Alphaliner, said changes among the major container shipping alliances are expected to trigger increased competition this year, “particularly in two strategic arenas: digitalized supply chains and green and low-carbon development initiatives.” That came as Cosco reported a 106% increase in net profit, to $6.8 billion, last year, on revenues that rose 33% to $32 billion thanks to significantly higher freight rates and a 10% year-over-year increase in total container volumes. Average revenue per TEU on international routes climbed 30% to $1,055 per TEU. Industrywide operating profits reached nearly $60 billion in 2024, according to estimates from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, but analysts are <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/oversupplied-ocean-carriers-sailing-into-new-downcycle-analysts-5963852">warning of a downcycle beginning this year</a>. The state-owned carrier said it will accelerate the scaled development of its dual-brand fleet, consisting of Cosco Shipping Lines and Hong Kong-based subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL), after it ordered a dozen 14,000-TEU methanol dual-fuel container ships last year. Cosco Shipping Lines accounted for approximately two-thirds ($4.3 billion) of the $6.8 billion in reported profits last year, with the balance coming from OOCL and terminal arm Cosco Shipping Port, which saw its net profit slip 5% to $309 million. Revenue gains were led by the trans-Pacific trade, which spiked 63% to $9 billion on a 13% jump in volumes. Asia-Europe revenue rose 41% to $6.4 billion despite a 13% drop in liftings, a reflection of operational capacity cuts stemming from vessels diverting around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid Houthi militant attacks in the Red Sea area. Revenue from intra-Asia, including Australia, climbed 23% to $7.4 billion on volumes that increased 11%. Earnings from other trades, including the trans-Atlantic and Latin America, grew 27% year over year to $4.5 billion as liftings rose 10%.Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Cosco Shipping Holdings said Friday that the industry will experience “profound changes in global cargo flow patterns” due to tariff- and trade-related policies after reporting strong profits in 2024. Container shipping demand growth is set to moderate this year, the carrier said, thanks to the combined effects of an easing of “global inflationary pressures and accommodative monetary policies in Europe and the United States.” The carrier, the fourth-largest by tonnage, according to Alphaliner, said changes among the major container shipping alliances are expected to trigger increased competition this year, “particularly in two strategic arenas: digitalized supply chains and green and low-carbon development initiatives.” That came as Cosco reported a 106% increase in net profit, to $6.8 billion, last year, on revenues that rose 33% to $32 billion thanks to significantly higher freight rates and a 10% year-over-year increase in total container volumes. Average revenue per TEU on international routes climbed 30% to $1,055 per TEU. Industrywide operating profits reached nearly $60 billion in 2024, according to estimates from Sea-Intelligence Maritime Analysis, but analysts are warning of a downcycle beginning this year . The state-owned carrier said it will accelerate the scaled development of its dual-brand fleet, consisting of Cosco Shipping Lines and Hong Kong-based subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL), after it ordered a dozen 14,000-TEU methanol dual-fuel container ships last year. Cosco Shipping Lines accounted for approximately two-thirds ($4.3 billion) of the $6.8 billion in reported profits last year, with the balance coming from OOCL and terminal arm Cosco Shipping Port, which saw its net profit slip 5% to $309 million. Revenue gains were led by the trans-Pacific trade, which spiked 63% to $9 billion on a 13% jump in volumes. Asia-Europe revenue rose 41% to $6.4 billion despite a 13% drop in liftings, a reflection of operational capacity cuts stemming from vessels diverting around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid Houthi militant attacks in the Red Sea area. Revenue from intra-Asia, including Australia, climbed 23% to $7.4 billion on volumes that increased 11%. Earnings from other trades, including the trans-Atlantic and Latin America, grew 27% year over year to $4.5 billion as liftings rose 10%. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Port News

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

Escalating tariffs will cause ‘profound’ trade pattern changes: Cosco

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US maritime interests said the proposed fees on Chinese ships would hit a variety of low-value, niche trades that can’t absorb the costs.</div>

US maritime interests said the proposed fees on Chinese ships would hit a variety of low-value, niche trades that can’t absorb the costs.

<div class="phx-topic">While major container lines and their major customers are not speaking out much about the Trump administration’s proposed fees of about $1 million per US port call on Chinese vessels, shippers involved in smaller maritime and container trades are lashing out directly against the proposal through a comment period ending Monday. In comments filed with US Trade Representative (USTR) prior to a Monday hearing on the proposed fees, maritime interests said it will hit swathes of the economy outside the container trade and will even hurt the US-based maritime industry, which relies on Chinese ships. The USTR hearing comes after a year-long investigation found that <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">China heavily subsidized its shipbuilding industry to take a dominant market share</a>. Last month, the USTR outlined a broad array of possible remedies, including collecting fees on Chinese carriers calling US ports, collecting other fees on non-Chinese carriers with Chinese ships in their fleet or newbuild orders in China, and requiring that US-flag vessels carry more exports. After the public hearing, the USTR will make a final determination on which of the penalties to enforce. The USTR has received more than 200 submissions ahead of Monday’s hearing on the impact of those penalties. The majority of commenters argue against any type of penalties, citing the potential for much higher shipping costs on trades that can least afford them and the reduction of services as Chinese ships avoid US ports. Many of the submissions highlighted that US-based ocean carriers also have Chinese-built ships in their fleets, with some of these fleets serving small regional markets such as the Caribbean, or dry and liquid bulk trades that will also be swept up in the port fees. There are 448 ships currently in service that are built in China and owned and operated by US ocean carriers, according to Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Dry bulk ships make up about one-third of that total. There are also about 90 Chinese-built container and general cargo ships in US-based fleets, Sea-web data show. Although the Jones Act bars these ships from transporting goods between US ports, carriers such as Tropical Shipping and Seaboard Marine can serve international ports in the Caribbean and Central America from US ports. <h3>Caribbean sees end to shipping services </h3>A number of Florida ports and Caribbean-based shippers said USTR’s proposed penalties would cripple trade throughout the region. While the port fees could easily be absorbed across multiple cargoes on large ships, smaller vessels and shippers would take a big hit if a fee is charged regardless of the size of the ship and the value of the cargo. Carriers that serve Caribbean markets with Chinese ships “would effectively be out of business and so would all the islands and countries they trade with,” West Indian Marine Group said in its comment. “Islands and countries in the Caribbean would not be able to survive and exist because all trade is supplied from the USA.” Other niche carriers said they would not be able to serve the US market if fees on Chinese ships are levied. Atlantic Container Line, which has five ships in the trans-Atlantic trade, said only Chinese shipyards were willing to build its ships, which can switch between handling containers, breakbulk and roll-on, roll-off cargoes. “ACL would be forced to terminate its US service, close its American offices, lay off its American staff and redeploy its ships to non-US trades,” the company said in its submission. Container lines that remain in the US trade will likely have to pass on those charges to customers, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) said in its submission. It said the port fees could add $600 to $800 to the cost of each shipping container moved through US ports as the USTR proposal would impact nearly all container vessel calls to the US. “While some reorganization and substitution may be possible to avoid exposure to fees, it would be impossible for container liners to avoid the disproportionately high fees proposed, and costs would be passed on to US charterers and consumers,” the ICS said. The proposed fees would also cause large ocean carriers to change their service networks, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) said in its submission to the USTR. It said container lines could increase calls to Canadian and Mexican ports to avoid the fees while reducing US port calls. <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">That would strain big US ports and leave others with vastly reduced business, all while increasing costs to shippers</a>, the AAPA said. “This would cause significant congestion at large ports and the collapse of business lines at small and medium-sized ports. The results would be higher inflation, more unemployment, and higher trade deficits,” the AAPA said. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

While major container lines and their major customers are not speaking out much about the Trump administration’s proposed fees of about $1 million per US port call on Chinese vessels, shippers involved in smaller maritime and container trades are lashing out directly against the proposal through a comment period ending Monday. In comments filed with US Trade Representative (USTR) prior to a Monday hearing on the proposed fees, maritime interests said it will hit swathes of the economy outside the container trade and will even hurt the US-based maritime industry, which relies on Chinese ships. The USTR hearing comes after a year-long investigation found that China heavily subsidized its shipbuilding industry to take a dominant market share . Last month, the USTR outlined a broad array of possible remedies, including collecting fees on Chinese carriers calling US ports, collecting other fees on non-Chinese carriers with Chinese ships in their fleet or newbuild orders in China, and requiring that US-flag vessels carry more exports. After the public hearing, the USTR will make a final determination on which of the penalties to enforce. The USTR has received more than 200 submissions ahead of Monday’s hearing on the impact of those penalties. The majority of commenters argue against any type of penalties, citing the potential for much higher shipping costs on trades that can least afford them and the reduction of services as Chinese ships avoid US ports. Many of the submissions highlighted that US-based ocean carriers also have Chinese-built ships in their fleets, with some of these fleets serving small regional markets such as the Caribbean, or dry and liquid bulk trades that will also be swept up in the port fees. There are 448 ships currently in service that are built in China and owned and operated by US ocean carriers, according to Sea-Web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Dry bulk ships make up about one-third of that total. There are also about 90 Chinese-built container and general cargo ships in US-based fleets, Sea-web data show. Although the Jones Act bars these ships from transporting goods between US ports, carriers such as Tropical Shipping and Seaboard Marine can serve international ports in the Caribbean and Central America from US ports. Caribbean sees end to shipping services A number of Florida ports and Caribbean-based shippers said USTR’s proposed penalties would cripple trade throughout the region. While the port fees could easily be absorbed across multiple cargoes on large ships, smaller vessels and shippers would take a big hit if a fee is charged regardless of the size of the ship and the value of the cargo. Carriers that serve Caribbean markets with Chinese ships “would effectively be out of business and so would all the islands and countries they trade with,” West Indian Marine Group said in its comment. “Islands and countries in the Caribbean would not be able to survive and exist because all trade is supplied from the USA.” Other niche carriers said they would not be able to serve the US market if fees on Chinese ships are levied. Atlantic Container Line, which has five ships in the trans-Atlantic trade, said only Chinese shipyards were willing to build its ships, which can switch between handling containers, breakbulk and roll-on, roll-off cargoes. “ACL would be forced to terminate its US service, close its American offices, lay off its American staff and redeploy its ships to non-US trades,” the company said in its submission. Container lines that remain in the US trade will likely have to pass on those charges to customers, the International Chamber of Shipping (ICS) said in its submission. It said the port fees could add $600 to $800 to the cost of each shipping container moved through US ports as the USTR proposal would impact nearly all container vessel calls to the US. “While some reorganization and substitution may be possible to avoid exposure to fees, it would be impossible for container liners to avoid the disproportionately high fees proposed, and costs would be passed on to US charterers and consumers,” the ICS said. The proposed fees would also cause large ocean carriers to change their service networks, the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) said in its submission to the USTR. It said container lines could increase calls to Canadian and Mexican ports to avoid the fees while reducing US port calls. That would strain big US ports and leave others with vastly reduced business, all while increasing costs to shippers , the AAPA said. “This would cause significant congestion at large ports and the collapse of business lines at small and medium-sized ports. The results would be higher inflation, more unemployment, and higher trade deficits,” the AAPA said. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

USTR’s China tonnage tax would squeeze smaller trades: stakeholders

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">MPV industry experts call for exemptions to US port taxes for China-built ships, stressing the lack of alternatives for specialist cargo carriage and the unfair burden on responsibility on the sector.</div>

MPV industry experts call for exemptions to US port taxes for China-built ships, stressing the lack of alternatives for specialist cargo carriage and the unfair burden on responsibility on the sector.

<div class="phx-topic">Breakbulk operators and interests are pulling no punches in their responses to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) proposal to hit Chinese-made and -operated vessels with fees of $1 million to $1.5 million per US port call.“Very bad for US trade,” “disadvantaging American businesses,” “disproportionately [affecting] US non-asset-based vessel operators, particularly those engaged in … breakbulk shipping,” various stakeholders said, weighing in on the proposal. In advance of Monday’s deadline for submission of comments to the proposal, multipurpose vessel (MPV) charterers and operators have criticized the proposal for creating higher vessel fees that will substantially increase the cost of transporting breakbulk and project cargoes, including steel coils and industrial components. Captain Scott Bravener, CEO of McKeil Marine Limited, a Canadian enterprise that delivers marine transportation and project cargo services across the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Seaway, East Coast, and the Canadian Arctic, said the proposed port fees “fail to account for the frequency-driven nature of short-sea shipping, where repeated port calls amplify financial burdens.”He added that MPVs lack the pricing flexibility of deep-sea container ships and cannot simply absorb substantial cost increases. The proposed fees seem “designed for large ocean-going vessels carrying cargo worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars,” Bravener said.In its response, MPV operator BBC Chartering asked for a complete exclusion for the breakbulk sector from the fees “because there are no US-built multipurpose heavy-lift vessels and because multipurpose heavy-lift vessels carry critical industrial cargoes, strategic components and resources to and from the US,” BBC Chartering USA president Tim Kopfensteiner and BBC Chartering Carriers CEO Ulrich Ulrichs said. BBC said the operator’s 581 port calls to the US in 2024 would translate to $581 million in fees under the proposal, “close to 200% of BBC’s annual revenue controlled in the US,” said the response. Suggesting amendments to the proposal, BBC recommended that the service fee be applied to Chinese-built tonnage prospectively; that it only applies to Chinese-built vessels without regard to the percentage of Chinese-built tonnage in the operator’s fleet; and that it corresponds to the size of the vessel.<h3>Rate not equitable for US versus non-US interests</h3>Another submission claimed the proposal unfairly penalizes non-Chinese shipping companies that have purchased secondhand Chinese-built vessels. A more effective and equitable approach would be to impose the fees solely on Chinese shipping companies with Chinese-built ships, suggested Kasper Bihlet, director of chartering Norvic Shipping with broad experience in the project and breakbulk sectors. “This would ensure that the burden falls on the true beneficiaries of China’s state-subsidized shipping industry, rather than on global shipowners who have lawfully acquired Chinese-built tonnage,” Bihlet said.Juan Ignacio Lopez, CEO of King Ocean Gulf Alliance LLC (KOGA), a transporter of mining and oilfield supplies, steel, agricultural products, dry bulk chemicals, power generation equipment, and heavy machinery, said the proposed rule would impose a higher tax burden on US operators than their foreign competitors. Lopez calculated that non-US operators using Chinese-built vessels would face a $1-million-per-port entry tax, while US operators using the same vessels would be subject to a higher tax of $1.5 million per port entry.“This disproportionate taxation on US companies puts us at a severe competitive disadvantage against foreign operators, who will have a lower cost structure when engaging in the same trade routes,” he said.To mitigate the unintended consequences of the proposed tax, KOGA echoed BBC comments that the tax be a tiered structure based on net tonnage, rather than a flat rate, and that it is implemented in a phased-in approach, allowing time for industry adjustments.Respondents also raised concerns that the fees would force MPV operators to ultimately pull US port calls. “This would leave a dramatic hole in the amount of ocean tonnage available for trading in the US. Limiting the options of vessels available on the market to carry US goods would most likely increase costs further for US shippers,” said a submission from John S. Connor, Inc., with interests in project cargo forwarding.Contact Carly Fields at <a href="mailto:carly.fields@spglobal.com">carly.fields@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

Breakbulk operators and interests are pulling no punches in their responses to the United States Trade Representative (USTR) proposal to hit Chinese-made and -operated vessels with fees of $1 million to $1.5 million per US port call. “Very bad for US trade,” “disadvantaging American businesses,” “disproportionately [affecting] US non-asset-based vessel operators, particularly those engaged in … breakbulk shipping,” various stakeholders said, weighing in on the proposal. In advance of Monday’s deadline for submission of comments to the proposal, multipurpose vessel (MPV) charterers and operators have criticized the proposal for creating higher vessel fees that will substantially increase the cost of transporting breakbulk and project cargoes, including steel coils and industrial components. Captain Scott Bravener, CEO of McKeil Marine Limited, a Canadian enterprise that delivers marine transportation and project cargo services across the Great Lakes, St. Lawrence Seaway, East Coast, and the Canadian Arctic, said the proposed port fees “fail to account for the frequency-driven nature of short-sea shipping, where repeated port calls amplify financial burdens.” He added that MPVs lack the pricing flexibility of deep-sea container ships and cannot simply absorb substantial cost increases. The proposed fees seem “designed for large ocean-going vessels carrying cargo worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars,” Bravener said. In its response, MPV operator BBC Chartering asked for a complete exclusion for the breakbulk sector from the fees “because there are no US-built multipurpose heavy-lift vessels and because multipurpose heavy-lift vessels carry critical industrial cargoes, strategic components and resources to and from the US,” BBC Chartering USA president Tim Kopfensteiner and BBC Chartering Carriers CEO Ulrich Ulrichs said. BBC said the operator’s 581 port calls to the US in 2024 would translate to $581 million in fees under the proposal, “close to 200% of BBC’s annual revenue controlled in the US,” said the response. Suggesting amendments to the proposal, BBC recommended that the service fee be applied to Chinese-built tonnage prospectively; that it only applies to Chinese-built vessels without regard to the percentage of Chinese-built tonnage in the operator’s fleet; and that it corresponds to the size of the vessel. Rate not equitable for US versus non-US interests Another submission claimed the proposal unfairly penalizes non-Chinese shipping companies that have purchased secondhand Chinese-built vessels. A more effective and equitable approach would be to impose the fees solely on Chinese shipping companies with Chinese-built ships, suggested Kasper Bihlet, director of chartering Norvic Shipping with broad experience in the project and breakbulk sectors. “This would ensure that the burden falls on the true beneficiaries of China’s state-subsidized shipping industry, rather than on global shipowners who have lawfully acquired Chinese-built tonnage,” Bihlet said. Juan Ignacio Lopez, CEO of King Ocean Gulf Alliance LLC (KOGA), a transporter of mining and oilfield supplies, steel, agricultural products, dry bulk chemicals, power generation equipment, and heavy machinery, said the proposed rule would impose a higher tax burden on US operators than their foreign competitors. Lopez calculated that non-US operators using Chinese-built vessels would face a $1-million-per-port entry tax, while US operators using the same vessels would be subject to a higher tax of $1.5 million per port entry. “This disproportionate taxation on US companies puts us at a severe competitive disadvantage against foreign operators, who will have a lower cost structure when engaging in the same trade routes,” he said. To mitigate the unintended consequences of the proposed tax, KOGA echoed BBC comments that the tax be a tiered structure based on net tonnage, rather than a flat rate, and that it is implemented in a phased-in approach, allowing time for industry adjustments. Respondents also raised concerns that the fees would force MPV operators to ultimately pull US port calls. “This would leave a dramatic hole in the amount of ocean tonnage available for trading in the US. Limiting the options of vessels available on the market to carry US goods would most likely increase costs further for US shippers,” said a submission from John S. Connor, Inc., with interests in project cargo forwarding. Contact Carly Fields at carly.fields@spglobal.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

Breakbulk stakeholders blast USTR’s China tonnage tax proposal

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Latest News

More News & Analysis

US LTL getting in position for higher freight demand – when it comes

Likelihood of IMO fuel standard set to reshape container shipping market

Escalating tariffs will cause ‘profound’ trade pattern changes: Cosco