<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">If you build it, they will come.Unless, of course, you build it 37 miles from downtown when </div>

If you build it, they will come.Unless, of course, you build it 37 miles from downtown when

<div>If you build it, they will come.Unless, of course, you build it 37 miles from downtown when there's already an airport closer to the city, and you fail to build high-speed rail or road connections to reach it. In that case they don't come; they leave in droves.That, essentially, is the story of Mirabel Airport, a gleaming new facility built on a wave of economic optimism in 1975, when it was hailed as ''a harbinger of the year 2000.'' Mirabel is a classic case of how an economic downturn, political uncertainty and a change in regulatory climate can turn a...

If you build it, they will come. Unless, of course, you build it 37 miles from downtown when there's already an airport closer to the city, and you fail to build high-speed rail or road connections to reach it. In that case they don't come; they leave in droves. That, essentially, is the story of Mirabel Airport, a gleaming new facility built on a wave of economic optimism in 1975, when it was hailed as ''a harbinger of the year 2000.'' Mirabel is a classic case of how an economic downturn, political uncertainty and a change in regulatory climate can turn a futuristic airport into a monument to failed expectations. Today, the airport that was launched with such high hopes operates at only 20 percent of its capacity and has run up a taxpayer tab of $2.95 billion in construction costs, interest payments and operating losses. Worse yet, the construction of a second airport in Montreal to handle international flights, while leaving domestic and transborder flights at the older and smaller Dorval Airport near downtown, has prompted a long roster of airlines - including Sabena, Lufthansa, Alitalia, TAP, Varig and Canadian Airlines - to abandon Montreal altogether in favor of hubs in other cities. The loss of passenger flights has meant a decline in cargo business in Montreal, since up to 70 percent of air cargo moves on passenger flights. ''Every time we lose an airline it's because the carriers were putting the passenger product first,'' said Paul Benoit, vice president of marketing and operations for Aeroports de Montreal (ADM), the quasi-public agency that manages both of the city's airports. ''But when I lose the passenger flight I also lose the cargo. Most of the cargo ends up being trucked from New York, Boston and Toronto.'' Last week, ADM moved to stem those losses by demoting Mirabel to No. 2 status. Beginning in April 1997, it said, all scheduled international flights will move to Dorval Airport, which will be upgraded for the purpose. Mirabel, designed to handle a steady stream of 900-passenger flights, will instead become a niche airport, dedicated to charter and all-cargo flights. ''If there had been railway service to Dorval and Mirabel from downtown, and if they had completed Autoroute 13 (a proposed high-speed road link), Mirabel would not be in this situation today,'' said Andre Boily, spokesman for Air France in Canada. The highway and railroad were never built because the high-octane expectations for the region's economy began to sputter not long after the airport was completed. Investment began to dwindle, partly in response to the uncertainty caused by the victory of the separatist party in provincial elections in 1976. Then the worldwide energy crisis hit, caused by the Arab oil embargo in 1973 and the oil shock that came with the Iranian revolution in 1979. The crisis dampened demand for air travel and nixed plans for the super-jumbo jets that were expected to keep the airport aloft. ''At the time the decision (to build Mirabel) was made, I'm not sure it was all that wrong,'' said Mr. Boily. ''In 1969, Aerospatiale in France had 130 (options for) orders for the Concorde. There was a big boom; everything was growing by 15 percent a year. We were expecting aircraft with 900-passenger capacity to come in one after the other. Eventually there were only 18 (firm) orders for the Concorde. But those were the figures that decision makers had to work with.'' Paradoxically, the U.S.-Canada open skies agreement, which has expanded options for air travel between the two countries, worsened Mirabel's fortunes. To take advantage of open skies, passengers and cargo would have to connect to North American flights at Dorval; that made the two-airport system seem all the more onerous. The airport authority considered and rejected the option of consolidating flights at Mirabel instead of Dorval. It was a simple matter of arithmetic, said ADM's Mr. Benoit. ''Today we have 600 airplane movements a day at Dorval and 20 at Mirabel,'' he said. ''Shutting down Dorval and consolidating at Mirabel would cost C$900 million (US$662 million); bringing Mirabel to Dorval will cost C$650 million (US$478 million).'' However, he said, ADM decided to keep Mirabel open, both to serve nighttime all-cargo and charter flights that cannot operate at Mirabel due to its 11 p.m. curfew, and to preserve the larger airport in case it is needed in the future. In 10 to 15 years, if optimistic economic projections pan out, airlines, shippers and passengers will be glad Mirabel is available, he said.

THEY BUILT MIRABEL AIRPORT, BUT FEW IN MONTREAL ARE COMING TO IT

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The most significant drop will take place in the second half of the month after Lunar New Year, with about 7% of the lost capacity attributed to a short month and “gaps in service handoffs,” according to maritime intelligence firm eeSea. </div>

The most significant drop will take place in the second half of the month after Lunar New Year, with about 7% of the lost capacity attributed to a short month and “gaps in service handoffs,” according to maritime intelligence firm eeSea.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">The restructuring of carrier alliances is causing a short-term capacity shift in the trans-Pacific, giving cargo owners about 20% more functional capacity this month compared to a year ago but still 8% less than in January, according to an analysis by maritime intelligence firm eeSea. The forecast by eeSea has the number of services on the eastbound trans-Pacific increasing by four to 53 in February. And though services are increasing, functional capacity on the trade lane will decrease. “A spike in total service versions should not mislead anyone to think there will be an equal spike in capacity,” eeSea said in its Far East-West Coast North America trade lane review published Jan. 31. As services get reorganized, the most significant drop in capacity will take place in the second half of February after Lunar New Year, with about 7% of the lost capacity attributed to a short month and “gaps in service handoffs,” eeSea said. Amid the capacity shift, several sources cited congestion at Chinese ports, including Shanghai and Ningbo, at the start of the Lunar New Year holiday. The slowdowns at origin are further tying up functional capacity, widening the impact from the simultaneous alliance revisions. Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of North American sales at forwarder MOL Consolidation Service, said some of the congestion can be attributed to cargo arriving at Chinese ports too close to the holiday, with a lack of vessel space to serve the cargo amid the alliance reshuffling. “The late product combined with the reshuffling just added a little bit of chaos,” said Nothdurft. The eeSea report attributes the dip in February capacity to several factors, including “heavily delayed arrivals on service versions on their way out, blank sailings announced for the 2025 Lunar New Year, the shorter [month] and gaps caused by some alliance services petering out as early as December whilst others have had their start dates pushed back.” Overall, forecasted blank sailings from eeSea remain conservative for February, with only four on the books as of now, down from 19 in January and compared to seven expected in March. With the temporary market influences expected to wane, eeSea data suggests that trans-Pacific capacity will stabilize at normal levels by the second quarter. “The capacity slump normalizes back to pre-transition values in the ~330,000 TEU range by the time we reach week 13 at the end of March,” eeSea said. Contact Laura Robb at <a href="mailto:Laura.Robb@spglobal.com">Laura.Robb@spglobal.com</a>.  </div>

The restructuring of carrier alliances is causing a short-term capacity shift in the trans-Pacific, giving cargo owners about 20% more functional capacity this month compared to a year ago but still 8% less than in January, according to an analysis by maritime intelligence firm eeSea. The forecast by eeSea has the number of services on the eastbound trans-Pacific increasing by four to 53 in February. And though services are increasing, functional capacity on the trade lane will decrease. “A spike in total service versions should not mislead anyone to think there will be an equal spike in capacity,” eeSea said in its Far East-West Coast North America trade lane review published Jan. 31. As services get reorganized, the most significant drop in capacity will take place in the second half of February after Lunar New Year, with about 7% of the lost capacity attributed to a short month and “gaps in service handoffs,” eeSea said. Amid the capacity shift, several sources cited congestion at Chinese ports, including Shanghai and Ningbo, at the start of the Lunar New Year holiday. The slowdowns at origin are further tying up functional capacity, widening the impact from the simultaneous alliance revisions. Stephen Nothdurft, vice president of North American sales at forwarder MOL Consolidation Service, said some of the congestion can be attributed to cargo arriving at Chinese ports too close to the holiday, with a lack of vessel space to serve the cargo amid the alliance reshuffling. “The late product combined with the reshuffling just added a little bit of chaos,” said Nothdurft. The eeSea report attributes the dip in February capacity to several factors, including “heavily delayed arrivals on service versions on their way out, blank sailings announced for the 2025 Lunar New Year, the shorter [month] and gaps caused by some alliance services petering out as early as December whilst others have had their start dates pushed back.” Overall, forecasted blank sailings from eeSea remain conservative for February, with only four on the books as of now, down from 19 in January and compared to seven expected in March. With the temporary market influences expected to wane, eeSea data suggests that trans-Pacific capacity will stabilize at normal levels by the second quarter. “The capacity slump normalizes back to pre-transition values in the ~330,000 TEU range by the time we reach week 13 at the end of March,” eeSea said. Contact Laura Robb at Laura.Robb@spglobal.com . 

Container Shipping News

Container lines

Trans-Pacific

Carrier alliance shifting causes February dip in trans-Pacific vessel capacity

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The latest move by the port involves a proposal by intermodal logistics provider IntermodeX to develop a transload facility near Prince Rupert’s Fairview Container Terminal that is designed to primarily attract import containers.</div>

The latest move by the port involves a proposal by intermodal logistics provider IntermodeX to develop a transload facility near Prince Rupert’s Fairview Container Terminal that is designed to primarily attract import containers.

<div class="phx-topic">The intermodal logistics provider IntermodeX will develop a transload and logistics facility near the Port of Prince Rupert in Western Canada that will be the latest component of the port authority’s master plan to expand import and export transload operations. Phase 1 of the logistics facility, known as LinX, is scheduled to open in the first quarter of 2027, the port said in a statement Monday. The 33-acre facility will be located close to Prince Rupert’s Fairview Container Terminal and Canadian National Railway’s (CN’s) intermodal hub. CN provides intermodal rail service linking Prince Rupert to Eastern Canada and Chicago. The port is working with private developers to build transload facilities designed to attract imports and exports by enhancing the efficiency of shipping through the British Columbia gateway. “It is imperative to offer customers robust logistics services including trucking, transloading and rail as we increase our competitiveness and grow container volumes at the Port of Prince Rupert,” Shaun Stevenson, president and CEO of the port authority, said in the statement. Prince Rupert handled 531,172 laden TEUs in 2024, a 7% increase over 2023. Laden imports, which accounted for about 77% of the port’s total container volume, increased 8%, while exports were up about 5%, according to port data. <h3>Prince Rupert promoting import, export transloading </h3>The LinX logistics facility will primarily handle containerized imports that will be transloaded from 40-foot marine containers into 53-foot domestic containers for shipment to the eastern half of North America via CN, Matthew May, president of IntermodeX, told the Journal of Commerce. IntermodeX, a subsidiary of SSA Marine, operates transload operations throughout British Columbia, including Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Most of the marine containers that are unloaded at the LinX facility will be shipped back empty to Asia on an expedited basis to be reloaded with import merchandise, rather than being shipped intact to interior destinations in Canada and the US where they may sit for weeks, May said. “We can turn that box almost [vessel] string to string,” May said, referencing the expedited nature of the operation. However, given Prince Rupert’s heavy reliance on imported merchandise from Asia, the port is also promoting transload operations that will attract exports, said Brian Friesen, vice president of trade development at the Prince Rupert Port Authority. CANXPORT, <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/prince-rupert-export-infrastructure-project-secures-canadian-government-loan-5221465">a transload export facility under construction on the port’s Ridley Island</a>, is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2026. A portion of the marine containers carrying imports will be unloaded and trucked a short distance to the CANXPORT facility to be filled with export commodities, Friesen said. Ray-Mont Logistics will develop and operate the facility on a 108-acre site. Prince Rupert is cooperating with the Canadian government and private developers to expand its transloading operations. Friesen said that transloading to date represents a “marginal share” of the port’s total container volume. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

The intermodal logistics provider IntermodeX will develop a transload and logistics facility near the Port of Prince Rupert in Western Canada that will be the latest component of the port authority’s master plan to expand import and export transload operations. Phase 1 of the logistics facility, known as LinX, is scheduled to open in the first quarter of 2027, the port said in a statement Monday. The 33-acre facility will be located close to Prince Rupert’s Fairview Container Terminal and Canadian National Railway’s (CN’s) intermodal hub. CN provides intermodal rail service linking Prince Rupert to Eastern Canada and Chicago. The port is working with private developers to build transload facilities designed to attract imports and exports by enhancing the efficiency of shipping through the British Columbia gateway. “It is imperative to offer customers robust logistics services including trucking, transloading and rail as we increase our competitiveness and grow container volumes at the Port of Prince Rupert,” Shaun Stevenson, president and CEO of the port authority, said in the statement. Prince Rupert handled 531,172 laden TEUs in 2024, a 7% increase over 2023. Laden imports, which accounted for about 77% of the port’s total container volume, increased 8%, while exports were up about 5%, according to port data. Prince Rupert promoting import, export transloading The LinX logistics facility will primarily handle containerized imports that will be transloaded from 40-foot marine containers into 53-foot domestic containers for shipment to the eastern half of North America via CN, Matthew May, president of IntermodeX, told the Journal of Commerce. IntermodeX, a subsidiary of SSA Marine, operates transload operations throughout British Columbia, including Vancouver and Prince Rupert. Most of the marine containers that are unloaded at the LinX facility will be shipped back empty to Asia on an expedited basis to be reloaded with import merchandise, rather than being shipped intact to interior destinations in Canada and the US where they may sit for weeks, May said. “We can turn that box almost [vessel] string to string,” May said, referencing the expedited nature of the operation. However, given Prince Rupert’s heavy reliance on imported merchandise from Asia, the port is also promoting transload operations that will attract exports, said Brian Friesen, vice president of trade development at the Prince Rupert Port Authority. CANXPORT, a transload export facility under construction on the port’s Ridley Island , is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2026. A portion of the marine containers carrying imports will be unloaded and trucked a short distance to the CANXPORT facility to be filled with export commodities, Friesen said. Ray-Mont Logistics will develop and operate the facility on a 108-acre site. Prince Rupert is cooperating with the Canadian government and private developers to expand its transloading operations. Friesen said that transloading to date represents a “marginal share” of the port’s total container volume. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com .

Port News

North American ports

Maritime

Prince Rupert promoting transload operations to improve logistics efficiency

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $741 per container versus truckload for spot market transactions across the 120 lanes in the Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index, up from $649 one year ago.</div>

In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers saved an average of $741 per container versus truckload for spot market transactions across the 120 lanes in the Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index, up from $649 one year ago.

<div class="phx-topic">Despite rising rail rates in Southern California, intermodal shippers saved more than 20% versus truckload on one-off business across the US in the fourth quarter, the third consecutive quarter in which spot market savings far exceeded historical norms, according to the latest Journal of Commerce <a href="https://www.joc.com/resources/special-reports/intermodal-savings-index">Intermodal Savings Index</a> (ISI). While intermodal savings dwindled on short-haul lanes of less than 1,200 miles, the national savings grew due to higher rebates to use rail on lanes greater than 1,200. The spot ISI averaged 121.0, down from 122.3 in the third quarter but up from 117.4 in the fourth quarter of 2023. The fourth-quarter 2024 average is also higher than the 10-year spot ISI average of 114.8. Spot truckload rates rose to $2.02 per mile by the end of December, up from $1.94 per mile in September, while intermodal rates rose to $1.63 from $1.61 per mile over the same period. Spot intermodal rates in the fourth quarter were the lowest for that three-month period since 2019. Although spot intermodal rates rose out of Los Angeles because of peak season surcharges, truckload rates climbed simultaneously, negating any impact on cost differential between rail and truck. The contract ISI, meanwhile, averaged 126.5 in the fourth quarter, up slightly from 126.1 in the third quarter and 126.2 in the fourth quarter of 2023. Domestic intermodal shippers have saved between 25% and 28% across the US since January 2023 compared with truckload. Contract truckload rates rose 3 cents to $1.98 per mile quarter over quarter, while contract intermodal rates fell a penny to $1.46 per mile. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="5f9ba1ac-ef69-466e-91f7-5e075bf25261"></dynamic-object></div>The ISIs measure how much money a shipper should save on 120 modally competitive US lanes. There are two indexes, one for the spot market and one for the contract market. Index values are measured from a neutral base of 100. Values greater than 100 indicate domestic intermodal is cheaper, while values less than 100 indicate trucking is cheaper. The higher the value, the more money intermodal saves an average shipper. All index values correspond to percentages, which means a value of 126.5 signifies an average US shipper saved 26.5% on a domestic intermodal contract versus a truckload contract. And 121.0 signifies a 21% savings comparing the spot intermodal and truckload markets. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers in the fourth quarter saved $741 per container on average for spot market transactions, up from $649 one year ago across the 120 indexed lanes. Shippers saved $838 per container on average for contractual business compared with trucking, up from $814 one year ago. The index assumes distribution centers are located less than 20 to 30 minutes away from the rail terminal at origin and destination. If the distribution center is an hour or more away, it could significantly reduce the savings calculated in the index or make long-haul trucking cheaper. Longer lengths of haul save the most money. On lanes greater than 2,000 miles, an average intermodal contract saved $1,457 per container. On lanes less than 800 miles, though, contracts saved only $150 per container, which can vanish based on detention or demurrage fees or a regional dray trip over one hour. <h3>Bid season cloudiness </h3>The first wave of 2025 intermodal contracts, which become active between January and mid-February, were “disappointing” for asset-based and non-asset intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), according to source conversations with the Journal of Commerce. Shippers accepted rate increases on California outbound freight, but on the lower end of what the IMCs sought, while rates were flat or down outside the West Coast. J.B. Hunt Transport Services said it has pivoted to pricing discussions on the second wave of bids, which typically go into effect between late March and the end of May. If truckload contract rates go up by mid-single digit percentages, then intermodal shippers might pay more in the second wave of bids. To date, trucking contracts for 2025 have been flat to slightly up year over year, according to conversations with truckload shippers. “We’re expecting the [truckload] bid season to be favorable from a contractual rate standpoint and we’d expect some of those rate increases to begin to be implemented in [the second quarter],” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation, the largest for-hire one-way truckload carrier in the US, said on a Jan. 22 earnings call. “As the truckload market rates begin to improve, typically you’ll see intermodal rates begin to follow, and we’re already starting to see that.” If accurate, J.B. Hunt, Schneider and other IMCs might be more successful in raising rates on shippers in the second quarter than in January bids. However, there is still an imbalance between the supply of containers and demand. Schneider said 10% of its fleet is stacked — about 2,600 containers — and if the figure represents the entire domestic intermodal market, then about 30,000 to 40,000 containers remain idle across the US. Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. The data behind the contract ISI and spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription. </div>

Despite rising rail rates in Southern California, intermodal shippers saved more than 20% versus truckload on one-off business across the US in the fourth quarter, the third consecutive quarter in which spot market savings far exceeded historical norms, according to the latest Journal of Commerce Intermodal Savings Index (ISI). While intermodal savings dwindled on short-haul lanes of less than 1,200 miles, the national savings grew due to higher rebates to use rail on lanes greater than 1,200. The spot ISI averaged 121.0, down from 122.3 in the third quarter but up from 117.4 in the fourth quarter of 2023. The fourth-quarter 2024 average is also higher than the 10-year spot ISI average of 114.8. Spot truckload rates rose to $2.02 per mile by the end of December, up from $1.94 per mile in September, while intermodal rates rose to $1.63 from $1.61 per mile over the same period. Spot intermodal rates in the fourth quarter were the lowest for that three-month period since 2019. Although spot intermodal rates rose out of Los Angeles because of peak season surcharges, truckload rates climbed simultaneously, negating any impact on cost differential between rail and truck. The contract ISI, meanwhile, averaged 126.5 in the fourth quarter, up slightly from 126.1 in the third quarter and 126.2 in the fourth quarter of 2023. Domestic intermodal shippers have saved between 25% and 28% across the US since January 2023 compared with truckload. Contract truckload rates rose 3 cents to $1.98 per mile quarter over quarter, while contract intermodal rates fell a penny to $1.46 per mile. The ISIs measure how much money a shipper should save on 120 modally competitive US lanes. There are two indexes, one for the spot market and one for the contract market. Index values are measured from a neutral base of 100. Values greater than 100 indicate domestic intermodal is cheaper, while values less than 100 indicate trucking is cheaper. The higher the value, the more money intermodal saves an average shipper. All index values correspond to percentages, which means a value of 126.5 signifies an average US shipper saved 26.5% on a domestic intermodal contract versus a truckload contract. And 121.0 signifies a 21% savings comparing the spot intermodal and truckload markets. In terms of raw dollars, intermodal shippers in the fourth quarter saved $741 per container on average for spot market transactions, up from $649 one year ago across the 120 indexed lanes. Shippers saved $838 per container on average for contractual business compared with trucking, up from $814 one year ago. The index assumes distribution centers are located less than 20 to 30 minutes away from the rail terminal at origin and destination. If the distribution center is an hour or more away, it could significantly reduce the savings calculated in the index or make long-haul trucking cheaper. Longer lengths of haul save the most money. On lanes greater than 2,000 miles, an average intermodal contract saved $1,457 per container. On lanes less than 800 miles, though, contracts saved only $150 per container, which can vanish based on detention or demurrage fees or a regional dray trip over one hour. Bid season cloudiness The first wave of 2025 intermodal contracts, which become active between January and mid-February, were “disappointing” for asset-based and non-asset intermodal marketing companies (IMCs), according to source conversations with the Journal of Commerce. Shippers accepted rate increases on California outbound freight, but on the lower end of what the IMCs sought, while rates were flat or down outside the West Coast. J.B. Hunt Transport Services said it has pivoted to pricing discussions on the second wave of bids, which typically go into effect between late March and the end of May. If truckload contract rates go up by mid-single digit percentages, then intermodal shippers might pay more in the second wave of bids. To date, trucking contracts for 2025 have been flat to slightly up year over year, according to conversations with truckload shippers. “We’re expecting the [truckload] bid season to be favorable from a contractual rate standpoint and we’d expect some of those rate increases to begin to be implemented in [the second quarter],” Adam Miller, CEO of Knight-Swift Transportation, the largest for-hire one-way truckload carrier in the US, said on a Jan. 22 earnings call. “As the truckload market rates begin to improve, typically you’ll see intermodal rates begin to follow, and we’re already starting to see that.” If accurate, J.B. Hunt, Schneider and other IMCs might be more successful in raising rates on shippers in the second quarter than in January bids. However, there is still an imbalance between the supply of containers and demand. Schneider said 10% of its fleet is stacked — about 2,600 containers — and if the figure represents the entire domestic intermodal market, then about 30,000 to 40,000 containers remain idle across the US. Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com . The data behind the contract ISI and spot ISI is available to Journal of Commerce subscribers with a Gold-tier subscription.

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

US spot intermodal savings dipped in Q4, but remained above historical norms

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">DSV CEO Jens Lund said the size of the Schenker acquisition meant it could take up to two years before the companies were fully integrated into the world’s largest forwarder.</div>

DSV CEO Jens Lund said the size of the Schenker acquisition meant it could take up to two years before the companies were fully integrated into the world’s largest forwarder.

<div class="phx-topic">Regulatory approval from the US and European Commission (EC) stands in the way of DSV’s $16 billion acquisition of DB Schenker, but DSV CFO Michael Ebbe is confident the takeover will be finalized by the end of the second quarter. So far, approvals from 33 regulatory bodies have been received, with the US and EC two of the three jurisdictions that are still outstanding. All 36 must give the green light before the lengthy integration process of DSV’s largest acquisition to date can begin. “I don’t think that they get rewarded to do things fast, but we are in a very good dialogue with [the US and European Commission] and have frequent virtual and physical meetings to answer any questions,” Ebbe told analysts during an earnings call Tuesday following the release of the forwarder’s 2024 annual results. “They have many questions, but we answer them.” Solid growth in volumes and air and ocean revenue through the fourth quarter allowed Denmark-based DSV to end the year with group revenue rising almost 12% year over year to $23 billion. However, the ongoing normalizing of markets and cost pressures saw gross profit decline 1.2% to $5.9 billion and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) drop 8.4% to $2.2 billion. Net profit for the year was down 18% compared with the previous year at $1.4 billion. DSV said it captured market share in both the air and ocean trades — the growth is estimated at 3% to 4% for 2024 — as its air freight tonnage increased 7% to 1.4 million tons and ocean freight also grew 7% to 2.68 million TEUs. The forwarder expects its 2025 volume growth to be near 3%, in line with the global GDP forecast, despite the current macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainties. Although DSV has targeted above-market growth in profit and volume, the global uncertainty was reflected in its financial expectations for 2025, with $300 million separating the upper and lower ends of its EBIT forecast of between $2.1 billion and $2.4 billion. <h3>Two-year integration process </h3>DB Schenker is the largest acquisition made by DSV, which also acquired UTi in 2015 for $1.35 billion, Panalpina in 2019 for $4.6 billion and Agility’s Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) in 2021 for $4.2 billion. DSV CEO Jens Lund said the size of the Schenker acquisition meant it could take up to two years before the two companies were fully integrated into the world’s largest forwarder. “Given the fact that Schenker is somewhat larger than the last acquisition of GIL, it will probably take more than 12 months this time because there’s more countries and more customers and more activity, but I don’t think it will take more than two years,” Lund said on the earnings call. The global forwarding market is so fragmented that the combined DSV-DB Schenker operation will still only have a market share of 6% to 7%. The top 20 forwarders have an estimated global market share of 30% to 40% combined, with the rest of the market consisting of multiple regional and local players. While DSV prepares for the DB Schenker integration, a more immediate concern for Lund is the restructuring of ocean networks that are disrupting major trade lanes, as well as threatened US tariffs and ongoing Red Sea diversions that are creating an increasingly uncertain outlook. The Gemini Cooperation, Premier Alliance and Mediterranean Shipping Co. with its standalone operation all launched their new networks on Feb. 1 and are jostling for business, Lund told analysts. “It’s a very competitive situation at this moment where everybody wants to make sure that in the new situation, they get the volume allocations they need,” he said. “They are <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/spot-rates-falling-as-new-ocean-networks-roll-out-sea-intelligence-5935891">competing to fill up their vessels</a> ... that’s been driving the [lower] rate levels.” <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="bf9f45a4-a69a-4ab8-9556-588dad0c74a8"></dynamic-object></div>Average spot rates from North Asia to the US West Coast were at $3,700 per FEU on Monday, down from $5,250/FEU at the beginning of January, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Current Asia-US East Coast rates of $5,500/FEU were $2,200 lower than the beginning of the year. It was a similar picture on Asia-North Europe, where the rate of $3,000/FEU this week was down from $5,000 in the first week of January, while the current Asia-Mediterranean rate of $4,300/FEU has slipped $1,000. “It’s hard to predict where [the rate slide] ends,” Lund said. “Customers are contracting a little bit shorter because they don’t want to get caught out on a long-term arrangement.” Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Regulatory approval from the US and European Commission (EC) stands in the way of DSV’s $16 billion acquisition of DB Schenker, but DSV CFO Michael Ebbe is confident the takeover will be finalized by the end of the second quarter. So far, approvals from 33 regulatory bodies have been received, with the US and EC two of the three jurisdictions that are still outstanding. All 36 must give the green light before the lengthy integration process of DSV’s largest acquisition to date can begin. “I don’t think that they get rewarded to do things fast, but we are in a very good dialogue with [the US and European Commission] and have frequent virtual and physical meetings to answer any questions,” Ebbe told analysts during an earnings call Tuesday following the release of the forwarder’s 2024 annual results. “They have many questions, but we answer them.” Solid growth in volumes and air and ocean revenue through the fourth quarter allowed Denmark-based DSV to end the year with group revenue rising almost 12% year over year to $23 billion. However, the ongoing normalizing of markets and cost pressures saw gross profit decline 1.2% to $5.9 billion and earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) drop 8.4% to $2.2 billion. Net profit for the year was down 18% compared with the previous year at $1.4 billion. DSV said it captured market share in both the air and ocean trades — the growth is estimated at 3% to 4% for 2024 — as its air freight tonnage increased 7% to 1.4 million tons and ocean freight also grew 7% to 2.68 million TEUs. The forwarder expects its 2025 volume growth to be near 3%, in line with the global GDP forecast, despite the current macroeconomic and geopolitical uncertainties. Although DSV has targeted above-market growth in profit and volume, the global uncertainty was reflected in its financial expectations for 2025, with $300 million separating the upper and lower ends of its EBIT forecast of between $2.1 billion and $2.4 billion. Two-year integration process DB Schenker is the largest acquisition made by DSV, which also acquired UTi in 2015 for $1.35 billion, Panalpina in 2019 for $4.6 billion and Agility’s Global Integrated Logistics (GIL) in 2021 for $4.2 billion. DSV CEO Jens Lund said the size of the Schenker acquisition meant it could take up to two years before the two companies were fully integrated into the world’s largest forwarder. “Given the fact that Schenker is somewhat larger than the last acquisition of GIL, it will probably take more than 12 months this time because there’s more countries and more customers and more activity, but I don’t think it will take more than two years,” Lund said on the earnings call. The global forwarding market is so fragmented that the combined DSV-DB Schenker operation will still only have a market share of 6% to 7%. The top 20 forwarders have an estimated global market share of 30% to 40% combined, with the rest of the market consisting of multiple regional and local players. While DSV prepares for the DB Schenker integration, a more immediate concern for Lund is the restructuring of ocean networks that are disrupting major trade lanes, as well as threatened US tariffs and ongoing Red Sea diversions that are creating an increasingly uncertain outlook. The Gemini Cooperation, Premier Alliance and Mediterranean Shipping Co. with its standalone operation all launched their new networks on Feb. 1 and are jostling for business, Lund told analysts. “It’s a very competitive situation at this moment where everybody wants to make sure that in the new situation, they get the volume allocations they need,” he said. “They are competing to fill up their vessels ... that’s been driving the [lower] rate levels.” Average spot rates from North Asia to the US West Coast were at $3,700 per FEU on Monday, down from $5,250/FEU at the beginning of January, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Current Asia-US East Coast rates of $5,500/FEU were $2,200 lower than the beginning of the year. It was a similar picture on Asia-North Europe, where the rate of $3,000/FEU this week was down from $5,000 in the first week of January, while the current Asia-Mediterranean rate of $4,300/FEU has slipped $1,000. “It’s hard to predict where [the rate slide] ends,” Lund said. “Customers are contracting a little bit shorter because they don’t want to get caught out on a long-term arrangement.” Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Supply chain

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Logistics Technology News

Forwarding

Approvals from Europe, US among last hurdles in DSV’s takeover of DB Schenker

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The vessel, carrying 1,353 containers of Chilean cherries to China, suffered a main engine failure in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on Jan. 13, 17 days into what was supposed to be a 24-day voyage.</div>

The vessel, carrying 1,353 containers of Chilean cherries to China, suffered a main engine failure in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on Jan. 13, 17 days into what was supposed to be a 24-day voyage.

<div class="phx-topic">Given the scale of the potential claim on the MV Maersk Saltoro, protection and indemnity (P&amp;I) clubs may in the future be reluctant to insure ocean carriers with such a volume of high-value, highly perishable — and therefore high-risk — items on board. <div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5937362_0.1.jpg"></img></div>The outcome of the Maersk Saltoro saga may be a watershed moment for the global trade in perishables. The vessel, one of this season’s record 30 Chile-to-China “Cherry Express” vessels, is carrying 1,353 containers (24,000 metric tons) of Chilean cherries, berries and nectarines from the Port of San Antonio to the Port of Nansha. The vessel suffered a main engine failure in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on Jan. 13, 17 days into what was supposed to be a 24-day voyage. After drifting in and around Micronesia for two weeks, the vessel resumed its voyage, albeit at a stately 7.5 knots, only for the engine to fail for a second time. In a best-case scenario, the earliest the vessel will arrive in Nansha is approximately six to seven weeks after its departure. As a result of the delay, the cherries will not arrive in time to exploit the historically lucrative Chinese market before and during the two-week-long Lunar New Year celebrations, which this year started on Jan. 29. Instead, they will be sold at a significant discount to the price they would have achieved, partly because the cargo missed the market but mostly because of suspicions about the fruit’s shelf life. This prognosis assumes that even after such a long voyage, the fruit will retain its structural integrity. Maersk has stated that the vessel has enough diesel to power the auxiliary engines, ensuring the reefer containers will be able to maintain temperature. Cherries are non-climacteric and do not ripen once they are severed from the plant that serves as their growth source. There have been sufficient advances in the field of controlled and/or modified atmosphere packaging to prolong the shelf life of even the most sensitive of perishable products. A now normal 24-day trans-Pacific voyage for cherries was unthinkable as recently as five years ago. Previously, Chilean fruit destined for China was shipped to the US West Coast and then airfreighted. If it costs an average of $1.80 per kilogram to pack the fruit, the per-container cost and freight (C&amp;F) to Nansha for the cherries is in the region of $46,000. The total cost of the cherry containers on the vessel will therefore be in the region of $60 million. However, shippers will argue that had the cherries arrived on time, the total value may be three to four times greater. It has the potential to become the largest ever reefer cargo-related claim and may have consequences and/or implications for the shipment of large volumes of high-value perishable products on container ships. <h3>On the surface, a ‘slam dunk’ against Maersk </h3>Maersk has acknowledged that timing is an issue and has directed concerned shippers to its Barbuss team of experts that specialize in handling claims related to maritime incidents. Superficially, it’s a slam dunk claim against the carrier, but this is where it could get complicated. According to Fester &amp; Co., one of the leading brokers in the placement and risk transfer of cargo insurance in the global insurance market, particularly for perishable cargo, any damage to cargo is covered by insurance. However, at first glance, there may not be any perceptible damage. The surveyors at the port will report on what they see and should make a value judgement on the state of the fruit. If they do not, Maersk can legitimately apologize to shippers for the delay — and sail on. There is nothing on the bill of lading that states that the carrier is responsible for the arrival date of the vessel. Most significantly, the majority of insurance policies no longer cover losses caused by delay. If there is no evident damage to the fruit, the most that shippers can expect is a claim against Maersk for the loss of potential earnings caused by the vessel’s delay. This will be hard to calculate and therefore contentious. Most importantly, it could take years for Maersk’s insurers to settle. <h3>Maersk could have a claim against shipper </h3>However, what is worse is that there may yet be an additional, even more serious obstacle to a satisfactory resolution, which relates to payment of the freight. If, as is likely, the cherries on the vessel are to be sold on consignment, it is the receivers who are responsible for settling the freight. However, typically it is the Chilean shippers who negotiate freight rates with the carriers. Here’s the kicker: Knowing that the fruit will at best have limited shelf-life and at worst be a total write-off, the receivers may refuse to accept the containers consigned to them. The freight will therefore go unpaid. In that instance, Maersk will have no choice but to take responsibility for the container and its contents, which will likely have to be dumped. Under these circumstances, the situation will be reversed; Maersk will have a claim against the individual shipper that booked the container. Fester says that there is clearly a very large overall loss event on the horizon. “The insurance industry is alarmed and has activated various recourse experts to get an accurate overview of the situation. The technical situation of the ship, the causes and the quality of the goods play an important role. Corresponding liability claims have been formulated,” the firm said in a statement. “... In addition, there are likely to be massive fluctuations in market prices.” The company added that, “In recent years, delay losses and market price fluctuations could not be placed on the insurance market, or only with very severe sub-limits. It can therefore be assumed that the insurance industry will only compensate for a small part of a possible total. Again, we must first get an independent overview of the extent and the actual impact before we speculate.” It could get even worse for shippers if the owner of the vessel declares “general average.” The law of general average is a principle of maritime law whereby all stakeholders in a sea venture proportionately share any losses resulting from a voluntary sacrifice of part of the ship or cargo to save the whole in an emergency. In the Maersk Saltoro case, this may result in shippers receiving an invoice to cover total vessel losses instead of a sum from an insurance company. Contact Richard Bright at <a href="mailto:richard.bright@spitfireuk.net">richard.bright@spitfireuk.net</a>.</div>

Given the scale of the potential claim on the MV Maersk Saltoro, protection and indemnity (P&I) clubs may in the future be reluctant to insure ocean carriers with such a volume of high-value, highly perishable — and therefore high-risk — items on board. The outcome of the Maersk Saltoro saga may be a watershed moment for the global trade in perishables. The vessel, one of this season’s record 30 Chile-to-China “Cherry Express” vessels, is carrying 1,353 containers (24,000 metric tons) of Chilean cherries, berries and nectarines from the Port of San Antonio to the Port of Nansha. The vessel suffered a main engine failure in the middle of the Pacific Ocean on Jan. 13, 17 days into what was supposed to be a 24-day voyage. After drifting in and around Micronesia for two weeks, the vessel resumed its voyage, albeit at a stately 7.5 knots, only for the engine to fail for a second time. In a best-case scenario, the earliest the vessel will arrive in Nansha is approximately six to seven weeks after its departure. As a result of the delay, the cherries will not arrive in time to exploit the historically lucrative Chinese market before and during the two-week-long Lunar New Year celebrations, which this year started on Jan. 29. Instead, they will be sold at a significant discount to the price they would have achieved, partly because the cargo missed the market but mostly because of suspicions about the fruit’s shelf life. This prognosis assumes that even after such a long voyage, the fruit will retain its structural integrity. Maersk has stated that the vessel has enough diesel to power the auxiliary engines, ensuring the reefer containers will be able to maintain temperature. Cherries are non-climacteric and do not ripen once they are severed from the plant that serves as their growth source. There have been sufficient advances in the field of controlled and/or modified atmosphere packaging to prolong the shelf life of even the most sensitive of perishable products. A now normal 24-day trans-Pacific voyage for cherries was unthinkable as recently as five years ago. Previously, Chilean fruit destined for China was shipped to the US West Coast and then airfreighted. If it costs an average of $1.80 per kilogram to pack the fruit, the per-container cost and freight (C&F) to Nansha for the cherries is in the region of $46,000. The total cost of the cherry containers on the vessel will therefore be in the region of $60 million. However, shippers will argue that had the cherries arrived on time, the total value may be three to four times greater. It has the potential to become the largest ever reefer cargo-related claim and may have consequences and/or implications for the shipment of large volumes of high-value perishable products on container ships. On the surface, a ‘slam dunk’ against Maersk Maersk has acknowledged that timing is an issue and has directed concerned shippers to its Barbuss team of experts that specialize in handling claims related to maritime incidents. Superficially, it’s a slam dunk claim against the carrier, but this is where it could get complicated. According to Fester & Co., one of the leading brokers in the placement and risk transfer of cargo insurance in the global insurance market, particularly for perishable cargo, any damage to cargo is covered by insurance. However, at first glance, there may not be any perceptible damage. The surveyors at the port will report on what they see and should make a value judgement on the state of the fruit. If they do not, Maersk can legitimately apologize to shippers for the delay — and sail on. There is nothing on the bill of lading that states that the carrier is responsible for the arrival date of the vessel. Most significantly, the majority of insurance policies no longer cover losses caused by delay. If there is no evident damage to the fruit, the most that shippers can expect is a claim against Maersk for the loss of potential earnings caused by the vessel’s delay. This will be hard to calculate and therefore contentious. Most importantly, it could take years for Maersk’s insurers to settle. Maersk could have a claim against shipper However, what is worse is that there may yet be an additional, even more serious obstacle to a satisfactory resolution, which relates to payment of the freight. If, as is likely, the cherries on the vessel are to be sold on consignment, it is the receivers who are responsible for settling the freight. However, typically it is the Chilean shippers who negotiate freight rates with the carriers. Here’s the kicker: Knowing that the fruit will at best have limited shelf-life and at worst be a total write-off, the receivers may refuse to accept the containers consigned to them. The freight will therefore go unpaid. In that instance, Maersk will have no choice but to take responsibility for the container and its contents, which will likely have to be dumped. Under these circumstances, the situation will be reversed; Maersk will have a claim against the individual shipper that booked the container. Fester says that there is clearly a very large overall loss event on the horizon. “The insurance industry is alarmed and has activated various recourse experts to get an accurate overview of the situation. The technical situation of the ship, the causes and the quality of the goods play an important role. Corresponding liability claims have been formulated,” the firm said in a statement. “... In addition, there are likely to be massive fluctuations in market prices.” The company added that, “In recent years, delay losses and market price fluctuations could not be placed on the insurance market, or only with very severe sub-limits. It can therefore be assumed that the insurance industry will only compensate for a small part of a possible total. Again, we must first get an independent overview of the extent and the actual impact before we speculate.” It could get even worse for shippers if the owner of the vessel declares “general average.” The law of general average is a principle of maritime law whereby all stakeholders in a sea venture proportionately share any losses resulting from a voluntary sacrifice of part of the ship or cargo to save the whole in an emergency. In the Maersk Saltoro case, this may result in shippers receiving an invoice to cover total vessel losses instead of a sum from an insurance company. Contact Richard Bright at richard.bright@spitfireuk.net .

Cool Cargo News

Chilean cherry shippers brace for insurance battle in Maersk Saltoro case

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

Use code STSW20 at checkout and save 20% on first year of any annual subscription plan.

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

Register today to redeem your Gold subscriber discount!

TPM Discount - Gold

Save 20% on TPM25

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE TODAY AND SAVE

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

Upgrade Subscription

20% OFF ON TPM25: Register today and redeem your Gold subscriber discount!

TPM Discount - Gold 

20% OFF ON TPM25

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

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

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

Breakbulk Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Breakbulk25

The premier conference for the global container shipping and supply chain community

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Carrier alliance shifting causes February dip in trans-Pacific vessel capacity

Prince Rupert promoting transload operations to improve logistics efficiency

US spot intermodal savings dipped in Q4, but remained above historical norms