<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The third quarter was good to practically all the publicly owned U.S. trucking companies: none reported losses, and their combined revenue rose 10.7 percent to more than $10 billion, supported by a second quarter of stronger freight demand and economic growth.</div>

The third quarter was good to practically all the publicly owned U.S. trucking companies: none reported losses, and their combined revenue rose 10.7 percent to more than $10 billion, supported by a second quarter of stronger freight demand and economic growth.

<div>The largest U.S. trucking companies got bigger and more profitable and handled more freight in the third quarter, as a faster-growing economy put more freight on the highways. The growth of these carriers in the quarter was limited only by difficulty putting drivers into trucks.As industrial output and containerized imports increased, the freight economy gained muscle. Industrial production dropped in August but turned upward in September, as manufacturing activity grew for the 16th straight month, according to the Institute for Supply Management.The U.S. economy isn’t booming, but as unemployment drops, falling to 5.8 percent nationwide in October, and gas prices...

The largest U.S. trucking companies got bigger and more profitable and handled more freight in the third quarter, as a faster-growing economy put more freight on the highways. The growth of these carriers in the quarter was limited only by difficulty putting drivers into trucks. As industrial output and containerized imports increased, the freight economy gained muscle. Industrial production dropped in August but turned upward in September, as manufacturing activity grew for the 16th straight month, according to the Institute for Supply Management. The U.S. economy isn’t booming, but as unemployment drops, falling to 5.8 percent nationwide in October, and gas prices at the pump fall below $3 a gallon, consumer confidence is improving, driving hope for a stronger than typical last quarter of the year. The third quarter was the fourth period in the past five quarters in which U.S. gross domestic product expanded at a 3.5 percent rate or faster, and carriers often outpaced that growth. U.S. shippers paid more for surface transportation, as tight capacity and rising demand gave truckload and less-than-truckload carriers alike decisive pricing power, reflected in increases in LTL revenue per hundredweight and truckload revenue per tractor per week. The 21 public motor carriers tracked by JOC.com increased their combined revenue 10.7 percent year-over-year in the third quarter to a combined $10.74 billion, a $159.2 million gain from the second quarter, when the trucking group increased revenue 12.2 percent. The third quarter of 2014 was only the second quarter the trucking group’s combined revenue has surpassed $10 billion, and the second quarter of double-digit percentage growth in revenue. The trucking companies’ performance spotlights the general improvement in the U.S. economy in 2014 — the third quarter marked the beginning of the sixth year of the U.S. economic recovery — over a more anemic 2013. Even in the weather-beaten first quarter, the public trucking companies increased revenue 9 percent, a higher rate than in the previous eight quarters. In the first three quarters of 2014, the trucking group increased revenue on average 11 percent, compared with 2.6 percent in the same nine-month period of 2013. In the third quarter, the public truckload companies tracked by JOC.com increased their combined revenue 11.9 percent from a year ago to $4.4 billion, compared with a 16.7 percent increase in the second quarter and a 13.5 percent increase in the first quarter. The truckload group’s revenue dipped slightly, by $9.1 million, from the second to the third quarter, after increasing 10.3 percent sequentially from the first to the second quarter, as spring released pent-up demand suppressed by the extremely frigid winter weather. In 2013, the truckload group increased revenue 7.2 percent in the same period and in 2012, 6.7 percent. Revenue for the LTL carrier group rose 9.9 percent year-over-year in the third quarter to $6.3 billion, following a 9.3 percent increase in the second quarter and a 6 percent increase in the first quarter. Sequentially, the LTL group raised their collective revenue 2.7 percent from the second to the third quarter, perhaps a sign of some shift of truckload freight to LTL as well as consistently strong industrial freight demand from U.S. manufacturing customers. Eight of the nine LTL carriers in the group hauled a combined 20.9 million shipments in the quarter, a 7.5 percent increase for the same carriers from the 2013 quarter. Truckload volume growth was limited by capacity constraints — namely the driver shortage — but those companies with drivers or the money to hire them reported higher volumes. Landstar System, for example, increased the number of loads hauled 11 percent year-over-year. Werner increased average loaded miles per truck 5.3 percent, largely due to improved utilization of existing vehicles. Werner added 25 trucks from the second quarter for a total of 7,060. Individually, 10 of the 21 public carriers reported double-digit revenue gains, compared with nine in the second quarter. On the truckload side, acquisitions boosted Heartland Express revenue 66.2 percent to $217.1 million in the quarter. Roadrunner Transportation System increased truckload revenue 54.5 percent from a year ago thanks to acquisitions in 2013 and 2014. Landstar System increased revenue 21.3 percent; Universal Truckload Services, 15.5 percent; Knight Transportation, 13.5 percent; and Celadon Trucking, 10.5 percent. Among the LTL carriers, Old Dominion Freight Line increased revenue 20.6 percent; Saia, 13.5 percent; FedEx Freight, 13 percent; and ABF Freight System, 11.1 percent. None of the 20 LTL and truckload companies that report a profit or loss lost money in the third quarter, and those that increased profits all did so by double-digit percentages. YRC Freight rolled out of the red to report an $8.8 million operating profit on $843 million in revenue. The LTL group pushed its average operating ratio down 20 basis points to 92.8, while the average truckload operating ratio rose 110 basis points to 90.9. Two LTL carriers had operating ratios — a measure of profitability before taxes and other charges — below 90: FedEx Freight at 89.6 and ODFL at 83. That’s the best OR for FedEx Freight since the end of the recession. ODFL’s OR has been below 90 since the second quarter of 2011. Among the truckload carriers, four had ORs below 90: Werner, with a 88.5 operating ratio; Swift Transportation, 87.5; Heartland, 83.3; and Knight Transportation, 82.5. USA Truck improved its profitability in the quarter, posting a 99.1 OR and a $2.7 million net profit. The trends that drove carrier revenue, profitability and rates higher in the third quarter persisted in the early fourth quarter, with most companies reporting strong freight volumes in October. Epic congestion at the largest U.S. port complex at Los Angeles and Long Beach is pushing up demand and pricing for spot market loads moving east from the West Coast, and the potential return of the “polar vortex” and extremely cold weather that could slow or disrupt supply chains is a cloud hanging over the late fourth quarter and early 2015. With the U.S. economy expected to grow moderately and steadily in 2015, the biggest concern for these carriers and their customers is likely to remain finding enough truck drivers to handle the increasing volume of freight and striking a balance between cost and demand. Contact William B. Cassidy at wcassidy@joc.com and follow him on Twitter: @wbcassidy_joc

Publicly owned trucking companies gain traction as U.S. economy improves

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Apparel importers are concerned that tariffs on China will do harm given more than 4 out of every 10 shipments of the product come from China.</div>

Apparel importers are concerned that tariffs on China will do harm given more than 4 out of every 10 shipments of the product come from China.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">A March study from consultancy firm Trade Partnership Worldwide has warned of a modest reduction in clothing imports if the US government makes higher tariffs on imported goods permanent and imposes fees on Chinese ships calling US ports. The US Trade Representative (USTR) on Thursday <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">scaled back the scope of planned port fees</a> on Chinese-built ships, but a 124.1% tariff on clothing and shoes from China remains in place. And with China supplying the lion’s share of apparel and footwear imports, US importers have limited options to shift sourcing elsewhere. Imports of apparel and footwear rose 13.3% year over year in 2024, including a 28.2% jump in shipments through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. However, compared with pre-pandemic 2019 levels, clothing imports were up just 3.8%. The five-year compound annual growth rates of 4% nationally and a mere 0.5% in Los Angeles and Long Beach also betray a much slower long-term expansion of consumer demand. While sourcing has increased from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Vietnam since 2019, China still accounted for 41.7% of containerized US apparel and footwear imports last year, according to PIERS. Citing a study by <a href="https://tradepartnership.com/reports/the-economic-effects-of-proposed-action-in-the-section-301-investigation-of-chinas-maritime-logistics-and-shipbuilding-policies-and-practices-2025/">Trade Partnership Worldwide</a>, the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) said in comments to the USTR that tariffs will cause apparel imports to decline 1.6% annually and leather imports such as shoes and accessories 2.7% annually. In addition, the study estimated retaliatory tariffs imposed by China and other countries would cause US apparel exports to drop 11.1% and leather products shipments to fall 13%, assuming current tariffs remain in place. Even with the 90-day pause to reciprocal tariffs, the association is concerned about how the uncertainty impacts shippers. Many of its members shifted sourcing to Vietnam during the first Trump administration. “The on-again, off-again tariff policy is forcing companies to careen between chaos and costs,” said AAFA CEO Steve Lamar in an April 9 statement. “This extreme tariff on US imports from China, which is in addition to President Trump’s Section 301 tariffs, will lead to higher prices for everyday apparel, footwear, and accessories and higher costs for US manufacturers who rely on materials and items they can only source from China.” The group is also worried about whether US terminal and rail infrastructure can handle the consolidation of calls and volumes at larger ports that ocean carriers have warned would result from the USTR port fees. “The supply of intermodal transportation is already limited, and the increased demand to move goods to major ports would further aggravate this issue, causing significant congestion,” said Nate Herman, AAFA senior vice president of policy, in a letter to the USTR. Apparel and footwear shippers have also lost traction on other key issues in the last year. The AAFA pushed for the US Foreign Trade Zone Parity Act to expand de minimis rules to foreign trade zones and against efforts to eliminate the de minimis rules on China. The de minimis rule allows packages under $800 to enter duty-free. Retailers and trade groups say removing this exemption for China will increase costs and delay deliveries. The de minimis exemption for China was set to end May 2, barring a reversal from the Trump administration. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

A March study from consultancy firm Trade Partnership Worldwide has warned of a modest reduction in clothing imports if the US government makes higher tariffs on imported goods permanent and imposes fees on Chinese ships calling US ports. The US Trade Representative (USTR) on Thursday scaled back the scope of planned port fees on Chinese-built ships, but a 124.1% tariff on clothing and shoes from China remains in place. And with China supplying the lion’s share of apparel and footwear imports, US importers have limited options to shift sourcing elsewhere. Imports of apparel and footwear rose 13.3% year over year in 2024, including a 28.2% jump in shipments through the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. However, compared with pre-pandemic 2019 levels, clothing imports were up just 3.8%. The five-year compound annual growth rates of 4% nationally and a mere 0.5% in Los Angeles and Long Beach also betray a much slower long-term expansion of consumer demand. While sourcing has increased from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Vietnam since 2019, China still accounted for 41.7% of containerized US apparel and footwear imports last year, according to PIERS. Citing a study by Trade Partnership Worldwide , the American Apparel and Footwear Association (AAFA) said in comments to the USTR that tariffs will cause apparel imports to decline 1.6% annually and leather imports such as shoes and accessories 2.7% annually. In addition, the study estimated retaliatory tariffs imposed by China and other countries would cause US apparel exports to drop 11.1% and leather products shipments to fall 13%, assuming current tariffs remain in place. Even with the 90-day pause to reciprocal tariffs, the association is concerned about how the uncertainty impacts shippers. Many of its members shifted sourcing to Vietnam during the first Trump administration. “The on-again, off-again tariff policy is forcing companies to careen between chaos and costs,” said AAFA CEO Steve Lamar in an April 9 statement. “This extreme tariff on US imports from China, which is in addition to President Trump’s Section 301 tariffs, will lead to higher prices for everyday apparel, footwear, and accessories and higher costs for US manufacturers who rely on materials and items they can only source from China.” The group is also worried about whether US terminal and rail infrastructure can handle the consolidation of calls and volumes at larger ports that ocean carriers have warned would result from the USTR port fees. “The supply of intermodal transportation is already limited, and the increased demand to move goods to major ports would further aggravate this issue, causing significant congestion,” said Nate Herman, AAFA senior vice president of policy, in a letter to the USTR. Apparel and footwear shippers have also lost traction on other key issues in the last year. The AAFA pushed for the US Foreign Trade Zone Parity Act to expand de minimis rules to foreign trade zones and against efforts to eliminate the de minimis rules on China. The de minimis rule allows packages under $800 to enter duty-free. Retailers and trade groups say removing this exemption for China will increase costs and delay deliveries. The de minimis exemption for China was set to end May 2, barring a reversal from the Trump administration. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

US apparel shippers brace for tariff-driven volume decline

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US maritime regulators’ decision to add the multipurpose vessel operator to the controlled-carrier list comes amid a wider US-China trade dispute. </div>

US maritime regulators’ decision to add the multipurpose vessel operator to the controlled-carrier list comes amid a wider US-China trade dispute.

<div class="phx-topic">US maritime regulators’ decision to add the multipurpose vessel operator to the controlled-carrier list comes amid a wider US-China trade dispute. US maritime regulators have added Chipolbrok, a multipurpose vessel operator 50/50 owned by the governments of China and Poland, to a list of entities deemed to be under Chinese government control, triggering extra scrutiny of the carrier. The move comes amid increasingly fractious relations between the US and China, with both countries imposing tit-for-tat tariffs and the US proposing port fees on commercial ships built in China. Other carriers on the Federal Maritime Commission’s (FMC’s) controlled-carrier list include China-based Cosco Shipping and its Hong Kong-based subsidiary OOCL, as well as South Korea-based HMM. The firm, which takes its name from its official title — the Chinese-Polish Joint Stock Shipping Company — was initially designated as a controlled carrier in November but confirmation was delayed while the company appealed the decision. Upholding the original ruling in a three-page determination this week, the FMC said a comprehensive review of the company’s ownership structure found that the Chinese government “exerts more control over the corporate structure and commercial activities of Chipolbrok than the Polish partner.” “For example, the company’s office in Shanghai is a headquarters office, while the Polish office is a branch office,” the FMC said in its determination. “The Chinese portion of the company is also more complex than the Polish one, with more subsidiaries and more executives. In addition, Cosco Shipping Group, a Chinese-controlled carrier, provides funding and other support to Chipolbrok.” Controlled carriers are subject to enhanced regulatory oversight on the basis that government-subsidized shipping firms could undercut privately owned carriers to gain access to the US market or disrupt trade, the FMC said. Chipolbrok has an owned fleet of 31 multipurpose vessels ranging in size up to 62,000 deadweight tons (dwt) that operate semi-liner and tramp services and four 38,000-dwt ships on order for delivery starting next year. In the US, the firm operates through Houston-based Chipolbrok Americas, formed in 2004. Recent shipments have included components for LNG facilities along the Gulf of Mexico, wind power equipment and breakbulk cargoes including steel coils. Oslo, Norway-headquartered maritime consultancy Esgian said 19% of Chipolbrok’s total vessel sailings last year were US-related, of which 15% were between the US and Mexico. Chipolbrok representatives in the US and Europe were not immediately available for comment. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

US maritime regulators’ decision to add the multipurpose vessel operator to the controlled-carrier list comes amid a wider US-China trade dispute. US maritime regulators have added Chipolbrok, a multipurpose vessel operator 50/50 owned by the governments of China and Poland, to a list of entities deemed to be under Chinese government control, triggering extra scrutiny of the carrier. The move comes amid increasingly fractious relations between the US and China, with both countries imposing tit-for-tat tariffs and the US proposing port fees on commercial ships built in China. Other carriers on the Federal Maritime Commission’s (FMC’s) controlled-carrier list include China-based Cosco Shipping and its Hong Kong-based subsidiary OOCL, as well as South Korea-based HMM. The firm, which takes its name from its official title — the Chinese-Polish Joint Stock Shipping Company — was initially designated as a controlled carrier in November but confirmation was delayed while the company appealed the decision. Upholding the original ruling in a three-page determination this week, the FMC said a comprehensive review of the company’s ownership structure found that the Chinese government “exerts more control over the corporate structure and commercial activities of Chipolbrok than the Polish partner.” “For example, the company’s office in Shanghai is a headquarters office, while the Polish office is a branch office,” the FMC said in its determination. “The Chinese portion of the company is also more complex than the Polish one, with more subsidiaries and more executives. In addition, Cosco Shipping Group, a Chinese-controlled carrier, provides funding and other support to Chipolbrok.” Controlled carriers are subject to enhanced regulatory oversight on the basis that government-subsidized shipping firms could undercut privately owned carriers to gain access to the US market or disrupt trade, the FMC said. Chipolbrok has an owned fleet of 31 multipurpose vessels ranging in size up to 62,000 deadweight tons (dwt) that operate semi-liner and tramp services and four 38,000-dwt ships on order for delivery starting next year. In the US, the firm operates through Houston-based Chipolbrok Americas, formed in 2004. Recent shipments have included components for LNG facilities along the Gulf of Mexico, wind power equipment and breakbulk cargoes including steel coils. Oslo, Norway-headquartered maritime consultancy Esgian said 19% of Chipolbrok’s total vessel sailings last year were US-related, of which 15% were between the US and Mexico. Chipolbrok representatives in the US and Europe were not immediately available for comment. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Breakbulk carriers

Project cargo

Breakbulk News

FMC to scrutinize Chipolbrok, citing Chinese government control

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In addition to various ongoing supply chain disruptions that US agricultural shippers face, they must now contend with the highly volatile tariff environment that is forcing them to seek new markets for their products.</div>

In addition to various ongoing supply chain disruptions that US agricultural shippers face, they must now contend with the highly volatile tariff environment that is forcing them to seek new markets for their products.

<div class="phx-topic">US exporters of agricultural products will have to navigate a minefield of tariffs, supply chain challenges and phytosanitary restrictions through the balance of 2025 as they seek to protect access to existing overseas markets and develop new ones. Shippers of grains, cotton, hay, fruits, nuts and forest products will face, by far, their greatest obstacles in China, which is engaged in a full-blown trade dispute with the Trump administration. China, still the top destination for US agricultural exports, is deploying a multi-faceted attack on US ag shippers in retaliation for the huge tariffs the US has implemented on imports from China. In addition to levying tariffs as high as 125% on imports of US agricultural and forest products, China is restricting or eliminating imports of certain products due to phytosanitary concerns. US log exports are a prime example, said Hayden Swofford, independent administrator of the Pacific Northwest Asia Shippers Association, whose members include forest products shippers. China had been tariffing forest products from the US at 5% to 12.5% based on the origin points in the US, but then in March it banned the importation of all US forest products due to concerns over the alleged infestation of bark beetles. “China plays this game at multiple levels,” Swofford said. Containerized exports of US agricultural products totaled 1.5 million TEUs in 2024. That was up 6.2% from 2023 but down 2.4% from 2019, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. In the first two months of 2025, shipments have slipped 6.4% compared with the same period last year.<div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="60c6cf3b-836b-442c-b891-d423954185a8"></dynamic-object></div>China’s share of total US ag exports in 2024 was 15.8%, down from just under 21% in 2023 and the most recent five-year high of 23.7% in 2022, according to PIERS. Still, “Ag shippers are more exposed to China than other sectors,” said Paul Bingham, director of transportation consulting for S&amp;P Global Market Intelligence. In its ongoing tariff standoff with the US, China is targeting specific US export sectors but oftentimes does not tariff those same products from other countries that may be direct competitors of the US, giving other countries a competitive pricing advantage, Bingham said. That scenario played out in 2018 when President Donald Trump levied tariffs on imports from China, which responded with tariffs on US ag products. US hay exporters had to seek markets in other countries to replace the sales it lost in China, said Scot Courtright, COO of Washington state-based Courtright Enterprises, which specializes in the logistics and export of forage. A shift in destination markets can result in logistical problems, Courtright said. European hay exporters seven years ago increased their shipments to China, but as a result they had less hay to ship to their existing markets in the Middle East. So US hay exporters stepped up their exports to the Middle East, Courtright said. But as China has extensive liner services from the US, destinations in the Middle East do not. “Getting vessel space to the Middle East is difficult, and the shipment can be transshipped two or three times,” Courtright said. <h3>Ag shippers may lose their largest market </h3>Tariff and trade frictions between the US and China will be especially harmful for cotton exporters, said Buddy Allen, president and CEO of the American Cotton Shippers Association. “It is possible that China can go from being the largest market for US cotton to the smallest,” Allen said. And soybean exporters now face a major issue of replacing China, the largest market for US soybean exports, with multiple, smaller shipments to other countries, said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soybean Transportation Coalition. “China is number one, but it’s less viable now,” he said. Other viable markets for US soybean exporters are Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico and North Africa, Steenhoek said. Brazil and Argentina are the largest competitors of US soybean exporters in the China market. <h3>Ag shippers still face supply chain issues </h3>US agricultural shippers last year faced a host of supply chain issues, including draft restrictions at the Panama Canal and attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea by Houthi militants, forcing the diversion of most liner traffic around southern Africa. Shippers also had to contend with the threat of a strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) against employers at East and Gulf coasts, in addition to a brief work stoppage in early October. Importers and exporters diverted discretionary cargo to West Coast ports, which resulted in extended rail container dwell times and congestion in Seattle-Tacoma and Los Angeles-Long Beach. And carriers continue to struggle with poor on-time reliability to both coasts, which makes it difficult for US exporters to keep to the delivery schedules their overseas buyers rely on for supply chain reliability, Steenhoek said. “The power of predictability is compromised,” Steen Hoek said. “I would rather that service be consistently good than occasionally exceptional.” In addition to unreliability on the ocean side, cotton shippers face continually changing delivery deadlines for their loaded containers at marine terminals and inland hubs. That uncertainty not only disrupts supply chains but also results in tangible costs for exporters, said Mike Symonanis, director of strategic network at Louis Dreyfus. “We are live-load shippers,” Symonanis said. Agricultural shippers said that in the volatile environment of tariffs and counter-tariffs, they are stepping up their lobbying in Washington through trade organizations to ensure that Congress and the White House understand the importance of ag exports to the US economy. “This is our first, second and third objective,” said the American Cotton Shippers Association’s Allen. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

US exporters of agricultural products will have to navigate a minefield of tariffs, supply chain challenges and phytosanitary restrictions through the balance of 2025 as they seek to protect access to existing overseas markets and develop new ones. Shippers of grains, cotton, hay, fruits, nuts and forest products will face, by far, their greatest obstacles in China, which is engaged in a full-blown trade dispute with the Trump administration. China, still the top destination for US agricultural exports, is deploying a multi-faceted attack on US ag shippers in retaliation for the huge tariffs the US has implemented on imports from China. In addition to levying tariffs as high as 125% on imports of US agricultural and forest products, China is restricting or eliminating imports of certain products due to phytosanitary concerns. US log exports are a prime example, said Hayden Swofford, independent administrator of the Pacific Northwest Asia Shippers Association, whose members include forest products shippers. China had been tariffing forest products from the US at 5% to 12.5% based on the origin points in the US, but then in March it banned the importation of all US forest products due to concerns over the alleged infestation of bark beetles. “China plays this game at multiple levels,” Swofford said. Containerized exports of US agricultural products totaled 1.5 million TEUs in 2024. That was up 6.2% from 2023 but down 2.4% from 2019, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. In the first two months of 2025, shipments have slipped 6.4% compared with the same period last year. China’s share of total US ag exports in 2024 was 15.8%, down from just under 21% in 2023 and the most recent five-year high of 23.7% in 2022, according to PIERS. Still, “Ag shippers are more exposed to China than other sectors,” said Paul Bingham, director of transportation consulting for S&P Global Market Intelligence. In its ongoing tariff standoff with the US, China is targeting specific US export sectors but oftentimes does not tariff those same products from other countries that may be direct competitors of the US, giving other countries a competitive pricing advantage, Bingham said. That scenario played out in 2018 when President Donald Trump levied tariffs on imports from China, which responded with tariffs on US ag products. US hay exporters had to seek markets in other countries to replace the sales it lost in China, said Scot Courtright, COO of Washington state-based Courtright Enterprises, which specializes in the logistics and export of forage. A shift in destination markets can result in logistical problems, Courtright said. European hay exporters seven years ago increased their shipments to China, but as a result they had less hay to ship to their existing markets in the Middle East. So US hay exporters stepped up their exports to the Middle East, Courtright said. But as China has extensive liner services from the US, destinations in the Middle East do not. “Getting vessel space to the Middle East is difficult, and the shipment can be transshipped two or three times,” Courtright said. Ag shippers may lose their largest market Tariff and trade frictions between the US and China will be especially harmful for cotton exporters, said Buddy Allen, president and CEO of the American Cotton Shippers Association. “It is possible that China can go from being the largest market for US cotton to the smallest,” Allen said. And soybean exporters now face a major issue of replacing China, the largest market for US soybean exports, with multiple, smaller shipments to other countries, said Mike Steenhoek, executive director of the Soybean Transportation Coalition. “China is number one, but it’s less viable now,” he said. Other viable markets for US soybean exporters are Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, Mexico and North Africa, Steenhoek said. Brazil and Argentina are the largest competitors of US soybean exporters in the China market. Ag shippers still face supply chain issues US agricultural shippers last year faced a host of supply chain issues, including draft restrictions at the Panama Canal and attacks on commercial vessels in the Red Sea by Houthi militants, forcing the diversion of most liner traffic around southern Africa. Shippers also had to contend with the threat of a strike by the International Longshoremen’s Association (ILA) against employers at East and Gulf coasts, in addition to a brief work stoppage in early October. Importers and exporters diverted discretionary cargo to West Coast ports, which resulted in extended rail container dwell times and congestion in Seattle-Tacoma and Los Angeles-Long Beach. And carriers continue to struggle with poor on-time reliability to both coasts, which makes it difficult for US exporters to keep to the delivery schedules their overseas buyers rely on for supply chain reliability, Steenhoek said. “The power of predictability is compromised,” Steen Hoek said. “I would rather that service be consistently good than occasionally exceptional.” In addition to unreliability on the ocean side, cotton shippers face continually changing delivery deadlines for their loaded containers at marine terminals and inland hubs. That uncertainty not only disrupts supply chains but also results in tangible costs for exporters, said Mike Symonanis, director of strategic network at Louis Dreyfus. “We are live-load shippers,” Symonanis said. Agricultural shippers said that in the volatile environment of tariffs and counter-tariffs, they are stepping up their lobbying in Washington through trade organizations to ensure that Congress and the White House understand the importance of ag exports to the US economy. “This is our first, second and third objective,” said the American Cotton Shippers Association’s Allen. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Supply chain

Container Shipping News

Port News

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Trans-Pacific

Uncertain trade environment especially fraught for US ag shippers

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The US Trade Representative (USTR) laid out actions to counter China’s maritime dominance that could put Cosco Shipping and subsidiary OOCL on the hook for millions when their ships call the US. </div>

The US Trade Representative (USTR) laid out actions to counter China’s maritime dominance that could put Cosco Shipping and subsidiary OOCL on the hook for millions when their ships call the US.

<div class="phx-topic">The US Trade Representative (USTR) has narrowed the scope of its tariffs against China’s maritime industry to a fee based on the cargo capacity or container volume of Chinese-operated and -built ships entering US ports. The more targeted actions follow industry warnings that earlier proposals <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">would increase costs for US shippers and pose an existential threat to smaller ports</a>, but China-based ocean carriers could still face millions in fees under the tariffs. In its list of tariff actions that take effect Oct. 14, the USTR said Chinese ocean carriers will be subject to a fee of $50 per net ton of capacity upon arrival at a US port. The fee will go up to $80 after one year, rising each year before topping out at $140 in 2028. Net tonnage measures a ship’s overall cargo capacity, regardless of vessel type. The fee will only be charged at the first port of call on a vessel string and will not stack on top of other port calls. The fee will only be charged five times per year on each vessel. Ocean carriers based outside of China operating Chinese-built ships will face a fee based on either net tonnage or container volume, whichever is higher. Ships built in other countries will not face the same fees, nor will fees be assessed based on the percentage of Chinese-built ships in a carrier’s fleet or orders at Chinese shipyards. The tonnage fee for non-Chinese carriers starts at $18, escalating to $23 by April 2026 and topping out at $33 in 2028. The per-container fee starts at $120 and rises to $153 next year and $250 in 2028. Non-Chinese ocean carriers will be able to waive the fee if they take delivery of a US-built ship of at least the same size within three years. The fees will not apply to Chinese-built ships in US-flag fleets, container ships that are 4,000 TEUs or smaller, voyages of less than 2,000 nautical miles or Chinese-built ships owned by US-based carriers. The capacity-based tariffs come after a series of proposals that included fees of up to $1.5 million based on US port calls by Chinese carriers and similar fees on non-Chinese ocean carriers with Chinese-built ships in their fleets and orders at Chinese shipyards. Other proposals included an export cargo preference for US-built ships. After two days of hearings, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/ustrs-china-tonnage-tax-would-squeeze-smaller-trades-stakeholders-5967638">the USTR said it wanted to reduce the potential impact on US shippers</a>, particularly exporters and dry-bulk shippers. Still, the USTR plans tariffs based on the capacity of China-built ships and will still charge fees on that country’s ocean carriers. The goal of the fees is “to further disincentivize use of Chinese shipping services,” the USTR said. <h3>Cosco, OOCL in crosshairs </h3>The USTR’s fees will have the largest impact on ships operated by Cosco Shipping and its subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL). For example, the 13,092-TEU Cosco Hope made five calls to the Port of New York and New Jersey over the last 12 months as part of the Ocean Alliance’s Liberty Bridge service from Europe to the US East Coast, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. With a net tonnage of 63,544 tons, according to Sea-web, the Cosco Hope would have incurred a fee of $3.2 million for each port call. A similar capacity ship operated by a non-Chinese carrier would result in a fee of about $1 million per call. The 13,386-TEU Cosco Italy made 10 calls to the Port of Long Beach during the same period as part of Ocean Alliance’s Hibiscus Express service, Sea-web data show. Its net tonnage would put its fee at $3.3 million per call. The 16,828-TEU OOCL Bauhinia made three port calls to Long Beach as part of the South China Pacific Service. Its net tonnage would result in a fee of $2.8 million per call, according to the USTR’s formula. Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The US Trade Representative (USTR) has narrowed the scope of its tariffs against China’s maritime industry to a fee based on the cargo capacity or container volume of Chinese-operated and -built ships entering US ports. The more targeted actions follow industry warnings that earlier proposals would increase costs for US shippers and pose an existential threat to smaller ports , but China-based ocean carriers could still face millions in fees under the tariffs. In its list of tariff actions that take effect Oct. 14, the USTR said Chinese ocean carriers will be subject to a fee of $50 per net ton of capacity upon arrival at a US port. The fee will go up to $80 after one year, rising each year before topping out at $140 in 2028. Net tonnage measures a ship’s overall cargo capacity, regardless of vessel type. The fee will only be charged at the first port of call on a vessel string and will not stack on top of other port calls. The fee will only be charged five times per year on each vessel. Ocean carriers based outside of China operating Chinese-built ships will face a fee based on either net tonnage or container volume, whichever is higher. Ships built in other countries will not face the same fees, nor will fees be assessed based on the percentage of Chinese-built ships in a carrier’s fleet or orders at Chinese shipyards. The tonnage fee for non-Chinese carriers starts at $18, escalating to $23 by April 2026 and topping out at $33 in 2028. The per-container fee starts at $120 and rises to $153 next year and $250 in 2028. Non-Chinese ocean carriers will be able to waive the fee if they take delivery of a US-built ship of at least the same size within three years. The fees will not apply to Chinese-built ships in US-flag fleets, container ships that are 4,000 TEUs or smaller, voyages of less than 2,000 nautical miles or Chinese-built ships owned by US-based carriers. The capacity-based tariffs come after a series of proposals that included fees of up to $1.5 million based on US port calls by Chinese carriers and similar fees on non-Chinese ocean carriers with Chinese-built ships in their fleets and orders at Chinese shipyards. Other proposals included an export cargo preference for US-built ships. After two days of hearings, the USTR said it wanted to reduce the potential impact on US shippers , particularly exporters and dry-bulk shippers. Still, the USTR plans tariffs based on the capacity of China-built ships and will still charge fees on that country’s ocean carriers. The goal of the fees is “to further disincentivize use of Chinese shipping services,” the USTR said. Cosco, OOCL in crosshairs The USTR’s fees will have the largest impact on ships operated by Cosco Shipping and its subsidiary Orient Overseas Container Line (OOCL). For example, the 13,092-TEU Cosco Hope made five calls to the Port of New York and New Jersey over the last 12 months as part of the Ocean Alliance’s Liberty Bridge service from Europe to the US East Coast, according to Sea-web, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. With a net tonnage of 63,544 tons, according to Sea-web, the Cosco Hope would have incurred a fee of $3.2 million for each port call. A similar capacity ship operated by a non-Chinese carrier would result in a fee of about $1 million per call. The 13,386-TEU Cosco Italy made 10 calls to the Port of Long Beach during the same period as part of Ocean Alliance’s Hibiscus Express service, Sea-web data show. Its net tonnage would put its fee at $3.3 million per call. The 16,828-TEU OOCL Bauhinia made three port calls to Long Beach as part of the South China Pacific Service. Its net tonnage would result in a fee of $2.8 million per call, according to the USTR’s formula. Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

North American ports

Scaled back USTR port tariff to hit Chinese carriers hardest

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While not ideal, the agreement reached at the IMO’s Maritime Environment Protection Committee at least puts a price on global emissions that will help narrow the yawning cost gap between fossil fuels and greener alternatives.</div>

While not ideal, the agreement reached at the IMO’s Maritime Environment Protection Committee at least puts a price on global emissions that will help narrow the yawning cost gap between fossil fuels and greener alternatives.

<div class="phx-topic">The compromise framework agreement that emerged from the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) climate talks in London last week — despite deep divisions from member states — has been hailed as a decisive step forward for the decarbonization of shipping. Even though no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the IMO’s 83rd Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time. “It’s a highly positive step towards achieving net-zero by the 2050 goal,” said Mark Brownstein, senior vice president of energy at climate campaigner Environmental Defense Fund. “While it’s not everything one could have wanted, it does put a price on carbon and has the potential to materially jumpstart the development and deployment of the next generation of fuels that the shipping industry is going to need,” Brownstein told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week. The MEPC83 meeting at the IMO’s headquarters on the bank of the Thames River was a closely watched gathering of member states where the midterm measures centered around a fuel standard and pricing mechanism that were put forward for negotiation. But the meeting quickly exposed deep divisions between member states over a universal levy on carbon emissions, with <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-pulls-out-of-imo-climate-talks-threatens-retaliation-for-emissions-fees-5980359">the US refusing to attend</a> and even threatening retaliatory measures against any state imposing carbon fees on its ships. Brownstein played down the impact of the US’ refusal to participate. “It’s clear that from the actions last week that while the US has a voice, it does not have a veto,” he said. “The US is a relatively small player in the global shipping industry, and I think that that also was a factor here.” An agreement was finally reached on the compromise framework that places specific reduction targets on fuel intensity in container shipping and will result in financial penalties for non-compliance. <h3>Full lifecycle of fuel covered in new measures </h3>A key standard in the new regulation will be the fuel intensity used by global shipping, measured on a well-to-wake basis that covers the full lifecycle of the fuel. Starting in 2028, ships must lower their fuel intensity by a certain percentage compared with the baseline set in 2008. There are two tiers when it comes to the reduction factors, with the base target of Tier 1 set at a 4% reduction in 2028. A ship will pay $380 for every ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions above the base reduction target. Tier 2 is the compliance target that is set at a 17% reduction in 2028. A ship falling between the base target and the compliance target will pay $100 for every ton of GHG emissions or buy remedial units. Any ships outperforming the compliance target will earn surplus units, which can be banked for two years or traded with non-compliant ships. Reduction targets will increase every year, with expectations of a 65% reduction in carbon intensity by 2040. “It’s hard to imagine a more challenging geopolitical backdrop to the negotiations, and hard not to see the influence of that in this result,” said Tristan Smith, associate professor at the London-based UCL Energy Institute. “But the outcome’s significance for the sector cannot be ignored and is a major step forward.” Rico Luman, senior economist at global bank ING, agreed that while the outcome did not please everyone, it was a significant step forward along shipping’s path to net-zero emissions by 2050. “The IMO wanted to adopt a pricing scheme because that was the aim of these sessions, and it looks like they used a [compromise proposal] to at least agree on something on a global level,” Luman told the Journal of Commerce. “This is the first global mechanism of pricing for CO2 emissions and now the IMO can try to build support to develop this to a broader market-based framework,” he added. <h3>Regulation key to delivering green fuels at viable prices </h3>A lot of work lies ahead to tighten the emissions-cutting measures and narrow the pricing gap between current fossil fuels and greener alternatives. But global regulation was key to delivering renewable fuels at a commercially viable price, according to World Shipping Council (WSC) President and CEO Joe Kramek. “Liner shipping has already moved to kick-start decarbonization, with nearly 1,000 renewable-capable ships to be on the water by 2030,” Kramek said in a statement after the conclusion of MEPC83. “Outcomes from the IMO mean global regulations can now begin to leverage the record industry investment to meet decarbonization targets.” As the ocean shipping sector digests the outcome of MEPC83 and the measures taken to decarbonize the industry, data released this week by rate benchmarking platform Xeneta and Marine Benchmark show carrier emissions reached a record high in 2024, driven up by the diversions around southern Africa. Global container emissions increased 14% last year to 240.6 million tons, surpassing the previous record of 218.5 million tons set in 2021. But the record-breaking statistic should not be used as a stick to beat the maritime freight industry, Xeneta said in its analysis of the emissions data, pointing instead to ships sailing longer distances around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid attacks by Houthi militants operating from Yemen that began to escalate in the Red Sea in late 2023. “A new record high is the inevitable outcome of these diversions, both in terms of the increase in transport work and the record-high demand of laden containers being moved in 2024 as shippers responded to the Red Sea crisis by frontloading imports,” Xeneta said in a statement. Ocean carriers’ overall transport work, a measurement of tons of cargo moved multiplied by nautical miles sailed, increased 18% in 2024. That was mostly the result of fleet growth of 26% between December 2023 and December 2024 for ships with capacity between 14,500 and 20,000 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

The compromise framework agreement that emerged from the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) climate talks in London last week — despite deep divisions from member states — has been hailed as a decisive step forward for the decarbonization of shipping. Even though no universal carbon levy was agreed to at the IMO’s 83rd Maritime Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), shipping’s global carbon emissions will carry progressively increasing charges for the first time. “It’s a highly positive step towards achieving net-zero by the 2050 goal,” said Mark Brownstein, senior vice president of energy at climate campaigner Environmental Defense Fund. “While it’s not everything one could have wanted, it does put a price on carbon and has the potential to materially jumpstart the development and deployment of the next generation of fuels that the shipping industry is going to need,” Brownstein told the Journal of Commerce in an interview this week. The MEPC83 meeting at the IMO’s headquarters on the bank of the Thames River was a closely watched gathering of member states where the midterm measures centered around a fuel standard and pricing mechanism that were put forward for negotiation. But the meeting quickly exposed deep divisions between member states over a universal levy on carbon emissions, with the US refusing to attend and even threatening retaliatory measures against any state imposing carbon fees on its ships. Brownstein played down the impact of the US’ refusal to participate. “It’s clear that from the actions last week that while the US has a voice, it does not have a veto,” he said. “The US is a relatively small player in the global shipping industry, and I think that that also was a factor here.” An agreement was finally reached on the compromise framework that places specific reduction targets on fuel intensity in container shipping and will result in financial penalties for non-compliance. Full lifecycle of fuel covered in new measures A key standard in the new regulation will be the fuel intensity used by global shipping, measured on a well-to-wake basis that covers the full lifecycle of the fuel. Starting in 2028, ships must lower their fuel intensity by a certain percentage compared with the baseline set in 2008. There are two tiers when it comes to the reduction factors, with the base target of Tier 1 set at a 4% reduction in 2028. A ship will pay $380 for every ton of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions above the base reduction target. Tier 2 is the compliance target that is set at a 17% reduction in 2028. A ship falling between the base target and the compliance target will pay $100 for every ton of GHG emissions or buy remedial units. Any ships outperforming the compliance target will earn surplus units, which can be banked for two years or traded with non-compliant ships. Reduction targets will increase every year, with expectations of a 65% reduction in carbon intensity by 2040. “It’s hard to imagine a more challenging geopolitical backdrop to the negotiations, and hard not to see the influence of that in this result,” said Tristan Smith, associate professor at the London-based UCL Energy Institute. “But the outcome’s significance for the sector cannot be ignored and is a major step forward.” Rico Luman, senior economist at global bank ING, agreed that while the outcome did not please everyone, it was a significant step forward along shipping’s path to net-zero emissions by 2050. “The IMO wanted to adopt a pricing scheme because that was the aim of these sessions, and it looks like they used a [compromise proposal] to at least agree on something on a global level,” Luman told the Journal of Commerce. “This is the first global mechanism of pricing for CO2 emissions and now the IMO can try to build support to develop this to a broader market-based framework,” he added. Regulation key to delivering green fuels at viable prices A lot of work lies ahead to tighten the emissions-cutting measures and narrow the pricing gap between current fossil fuels and greener alternatives. But global regulation was key to delivering renewable fuels at a commercially viable price, according to World Shipping Council (WSC) President and CEO Joe Kramek. “Liner shipping has already moved to kick-start decarbonization, with nearly 1,000 renewable-capable ships to be on the water by 2030,” Kramek said in a statement after the conclusion of MEPC83. “Outcomes from the IMO mean global regulations can now begin to leverage the record industry investment to meet decarbonization targets.” As the ocean shipping sector digests the outcome of MEPC83 and the measures taken to decarbonize the industry, data released this week by rate benchmarking platform Xeneta and Marine Benchmark show carrier emissions reached a record high in 2024, driven up by the diversions around southern Africa. Global container emissions increased 14% last year to 240.6 million tons, surpassing the previous record of 218.5 million tons set in 2021. But the record-breaking statistic should not be used as a stick to beat the maritime freight industry, Xeneta said in its analysis of the emissions data, pointing instead to ships sailing longer distances around the Cape of Good Hope to avoid attacks by Houthi militants operating from Yemen that began to escalate in the Red Sea in late 2023. “A new record high is the inevitable outcome of these diversions, both in terms of the increase in transport work and the record-high demand of laden containers being moved in 2024 as shippers responded to the Red Sea crisis by frontloading imports,” Xeneta said in a statement. Ocean carriers’ overall transport work, a measurement of tons of cargo moved multiplied by nautical miles sailed, increased 18% in 2024. That was mostly the result of fleet growth of 26% between December 2023 and December 2024 for ships with capacity between 14,500 and 20,000 TEUs. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

IMO deal on fuel intensity, pricing hailed as ‘major step forward’

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The Journal of Commerce’s trucking news and analysis encompasses full truckload, less-than-truckload (LTL), private fleet trucking, refrigerated trucking, regulation, drayage, and transloading. Reporting centers on pricing, volume demand, capacity, labor, regulation, and service levels in US and Canadian trucking networks.

Truckload

Truck brokers

Flatbed

Trucking labor

Discover comprehensive trucking news and trends with Journal of Commerce - from trucking LTL to regulation and trucking supply and demand.

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

Trucking News

The Journal of Commerce’s surface transport news and analysis focuses on landside transport movement — from railroad news to trucking news — including full load trucking, less-than-truckload (LTL), refrigerated (or reefer) trucking, flatbed and domestic and international intermodal rail, and how it connects with seaports, inland rail hubs, distribution centers and transloading operations. Reporting on the surface transport sector covers the movement of domestic shipments within the United States and international cargoes transported via domestic equipment including trailers and 53-foot containers.

Stay updated with our rail transport news and trends. Journal of Commerce covers intermodal news, and port connectivity news in the container rail transport sector.

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

Rail News

Explore the world of ground transport news - from trucks to railroads, intermodal connections, and port ties. Daily insights on US and global shipments.

Latest News

Quarterly Intelligence

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

More News & Analysis

US apparel shippers brace for tariff-driven volume decline

FMC to scrutinize Chipolbrok, citing Chinese government control

Uncertain trade environment especially fraught for US ag shippers