<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">For more than a year, Union Pacific has been struggling with a surfeit of riches. Customers want to </div>

For more than a year, Union Pacific has been struggling with a surfeit of riches. Customers want to

<div>For more than a year, Union Pacific has been struggling with a surfeit of riches. Customers want to ship more freight than the railroad can handle.This isn't good. UP's volume growth, revenue, profit and ability to provide good service to customers are limited. UP is using prices to ration scarce capacity, and intermodal shippers are prime candidates to pay more.Capacity problems are the latest example of the changes in surface transportation. From a world of excess capacity in which railroads couldn't charge high enough rates or earn the cost of capital, they now face a world of constrained capacity where...

For more than a year, Union Pacific has been struggling with a surfeit of riches. Customers want to ship more freight than the railroad can handle. This isn't good. UP's volume growth, revenue, profit and ability to provide good service to customers are limited. UP is using prices to ration scarce capacity, and intermodal shippers are prime candidates to pay more. Capacity problems are the latest example of the changes in surface transportation. From a world of excess capacity in which railroads couldn't charge high enough rates or earn the cost of capital, they now face a world of constrained capacity where the pressure is to invest capital to expand capacity. UP isn't alone, but its service trials and tribulations make it the poster child for the industry. It desperately needs to expand capacity, but finds itself locked into long-term contracts that limit the revenue and earnings gains needed to finance more capital spending. All railroads face similar problems, but some are closer than UP to so-called revenue adequacy and earning their cost of capital, and will more readily be able to fund expansion. Jim Young, UP's president and chief operating officer, told last month's meeting of the North American Rail Shippers Association that UP needs to double-track the Sunset route between Los Angeles and El Paso, Texas, so it will have capacity to meet intermodal demand on that route. But based on current rates, UP can't justify the $600 million investment needed for the upgrade. Intermodal represents the future for railroads, and the Sunset route is the key to UP's ability to compete with BNSF Railway for long-haul intermodal business. With capacity, UP can battle it out and serve the Southern California-Midwest and Southern California-Southeast markets. The route splits at El Paso, with one line going northeast toward Chicago, and the other east to New Orleans and Memphis. Without additional capacity, UP will be forced to concentrate on bulk movements of international intermodal containers funneled to it by steamship lines that are willing to trade lower rates for lesser service. That's ironic. UP took over the Sunset route when it acquired Southern Pacific in 1996. SP used to boast that it was the leading hauler of international containers. That was true, but it was true because capital-starved SP couldn't deliver service quality that would attract better-paying customers such as UPS or less-than-truckload carriers. SP signed a number of long-term contracts locking in volume but at low rates, and UP inherited those contracts. They are no better for UP than they were for SP. They make a small contribution to fixed cost, but certainly don't produce enough revenue to justify the kind of capital expenditure needed now. UP wants to renegotiate intermodal contracts, some of which run until 2010. It wants more revenue now on the 20 percent of its business represented by intermodal. UP can offer guaranteed space on trains, terminal space and similar inducements to get higher rates. And some customers are renegotiating out of a fear that if they don't they'll face a backlash when their contracts do expire. How did UP get in this bind? It didn't do it all by itself. SP was in trouble for years before UP bought it. SP had little captive traffic on which it could charge high rates, and its service for competitive business was not competitive with railroads such as the Santa Fe. In desperate need of revenue, SP was a "bottom feeder," giving customers lengthy contracts at low rates. The operating plan filed as part of the UP-SP merger application had the double-tracking of the Sunset as one of the first major investments to be made. When UP learned it would not see much revenue, it delayed the project. UP further delayed intermodal investment when it had its 1997-98 service collapse. Instead, it saw a quicker return from investing in expanding coal-hauling capacity and increasing its ability to handle higher-margin manifest traffic over the Central Corridor. The SP purchase and the ensuing service crisis weakened UP's balance sheet, making it more costly to finance needed capital. With low-rate contracts and constrained capacity, the numbers simply didn't justify double-tracking the Sunset. But if UP doesn't increase capacity and service quality, more intermodal growth will accrue to BNSF, which has capacity and is building more. With superior service, BNSF also can charge higher rates. UP may be the largest railroad in North America based on total revenue. But it faces the choice of spending scarce capital and not getting much return for some years - or be consigned to being in second place in intermodal for a long time. UP can't afford to expand its Sunset route; it also can't afford not to. Larry Kaufman, former intermodal editor of The Journal of Commerce, has worked in and written about railroads for nearly 40 years. He can be contacted at Lkauf81509@aol.com .

Union Pacific's conundrum

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The very idea of the United States getting back into shipbuilding at scale shows an erosion in acceptance of the very concept of global trade, specifically comparative advantage. </div>

The very idea of the United States getting back into shipbuilding at scale shows an erosion in acceptance of the very concept of global trade, specifically comparative advantage.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic"><div class="wrapper-narrow float-right-element"><img src="/images/phoenix/5985578_0.1.jpg"></img></div>Should the United States be building commercial ships at scale? We know President Trump’s answer to that question — supporting US shipbuilding was a key rationale for the <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">fines on China-built</a> and -owned ships announced on April 17 by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The action “sends a demand signal for US-built ships,” said USTR Jamieson Greer.Whether the US should engage in a massive ramp-up in non-military shipbuilding is a worthy question to ask, raising far-reaching questions of reindustrialization, national security, and trade facilitation. Let’s be clear: A bipartisan consensus has existed for decades that the US should at some level be a commercial shipbuilder. That explains the stubborn endurance of the Jones Act, the world’s most protectionist maritime law. Despite its critics — Sen. John McCain once called it “an archaic 1920s-era law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy and hurts consumers” — it survived the long era of trade liberalization. Political support from US seagoing unions and other interests that benefit from the Jones Act kept the law entrenched, with supportive members of Congress and other leaders of the cause feted at the annual Admiral of the Ocean Seas (AOTOS) dinner. But behind that lies more visceral support for commercial shipbuilding. Long memories of World War II help explain that — without 2,800 Liberty ships and thousands of other merchant vessels launched from US shipyards in just a few years’ time, the US and its allies would not have won the war. It is thus not surprising that the US had a 0.1% share of shipbuilding as of 2023, with only the Jones Act keeping deep draft commercial shipbuilding afloat. That's in stark contrast to China — a rising power that catapulted from building less than 5% of global tonnage in 1999 to commanding more than half of the tonnage by 2023, according to the USTR. But does that justify the massive revival of shipbuilding Trump has envisioned? “We’re going to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry,” he said in March. <h3>Aging rationales amid new landscapes </h3>The question is, why? The two reasons the US used to need its own commercial fleet and the shipbuilding capacity behind it are no longer relevant. One is sealift during conflict. The armada built during World War II was required to support eight million US troops deployed overseas fighting in two theaters of war, as well as support for allies. Given technology and the evolution toward asymmetric conflict, US troop numbers were far lower in subsequent conflicts and will likely be further diminished in the future. As it stands today the US military has access to considerable sealift, including 60 subsidized US flag vessels under the Maritime Security Program operated by divisions of Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGM and others — all based in US ally countries. The program was created in the 1990s to maintain a US-flag fleet for military purposes as APL and Sea-Land, the largest US-based carriers, were sold to foreign owners. US forces overseas receive support from commercial container and ro-ro services, in addition to 125 civilian-crewed ships under the Navy’s Military Sealift Command. The other rationale — indeed, for shipbuilding in any country — is to support exports. In the postwar decades, carriers like American Export Lines symbolized US export dominance. A rough analogy today is the Chinese electric car maker BYD building its own fleet of car carriers as its exports rapidly ramp up. The US will regain manufacturing, it’s hard to see Trump not accomplishing that, but if predictions are accurate, to the extent it’s dominated by high-end goods like semiconductors that can be profitably manufactured in the US, it won’t be ships but planes that will be the primary mode of shipment. The very idea of the US getting back into shipbuilding at scale, moreover, shows an erosion in acceptance of the very concept of global trade, specifically comparative advantage, as a means of building countries’ wealth and prosperity by focusing on what each does best. It is hard to see a comparative advantage to Americans’ building ships when the cost is three times what other nations’ shipbuilders charge. The <a href="https://www.phillyshipyard.com/philly-shipyard-wins-usd-1-billion-contract-to-build-three-aloha-class-lng-fueled-containerships-for-matson/">$333 million per ship price</a> charged a few years ago by the Philly Shipyard to build three 3,600 TEU ships for Matson Navigation compares to $50 million for building a ship of that same size in an Asian yard, according to carrier sources. The US-built cost would be even more today given that US-built container ships increased in price by roughly $56,000 per TEU since 2002, while foreign-built increased by less than $7,000 over the same period, <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/competitiveness-protected-us-shipyards-continues-erode#:~:text=The%20recent%20run%2Dup%20in,beyond%20their%20normal%20life%20cycle.">according to the Cato Institute</a>, a libertarian think-tank. And so, if it’s not military sealift or support for exports, what is the rationale? The lack of one is why criticism has been heaped on the USTR action. “The US shipbuilding sector already faces significant constraints, including a backlog of military orders and ongoing labor shortages,” said World Shipping Council president and CEO Joe Kramek. The action “is a step in the wrong direction as it will raise prices for consumers, weaken US trade and do little to revitalize the US maritime industry.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at <a href="mailto:peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com">peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Should the United States be building commercial ships at scale? We know President Trump’s answer to that question — supporting US shipbuilding was a key rationale for the fines on China-built and -owned ships announced on April 17 by the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The action “sends a demand signal for US-built ships,” said USTR Jamieson Greer. Whether the US should engage in a massive ramp-up in non-military shipbuilding is a worthy question to ask, raising far-reaching questions of reindustrialization, national security, and trade facilitation. Let’s be clear: A bipartisan consensus has existed for decades that the US should at some level be a commercial shipbuilder. That explains the stubborn endurance of the Jones Act, the world’s most protectionist maritime law. Despite its critics — Sen. John McCain once called it “an archaic 1920s-era law that hinders free trade, stifles the economy and hurts consumers” — it survived the long era of trade liberalization. Political support from US seagoing unions and other interests that benefit from the Jones Act kept the law entrenched, with supportive members of Congress and other leaders of the cause feted at the annual Admiral of the Ocean Seas (AOTOS) dinner. But behind that lies more visceral support for commercial shipbuilding. Long memories of World War II help explain that — without 2,800 Liberty ships and thousands of other merchant vessels launched from US shipyards in just a few years’ time, the US and its allies would not have won the war. It is thus not surprising that the US had a 0.1% share of shipbuilding as of 2023, with only the Jones Act keeping deep draft commercial shipbuilding afloat. That's in stark contrast to China — a rising power that catapulted from building less than 5% of global tonnage in 1999 to commanding more than half of the tonnage by 2023, according to the USTR. But does that justify the massive revival of shipbuilding Trump has envisioned? “We’re going to resurrect the American shipbuilding industry,” he said in March. Aging rationales amid new landscapes The question is, why? The two reasons the US used to need its own commercial fleet and the shipbuilding capacity behind it are no longer relevant. One is sealift during conflict. The armada built during World War II was required to support eight million US troops deployed overseas fighting in two theaters of war, as well as support for allies. Given technology and the evolution toward asymmetric conflict, US troop numbers were far lower in subsequent conflicts and will likely be further diminished in the future. As it stands today the US military has access to considerable sealift, including 60 subsidized US flag vessels under the Maritime Security Program operated by divisions of Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, CMA CGM and others — all based in US ally countries. The program was created in the 1990s to maintain a US-flag fleet for military purposes as APL and Sea-Land, the largest US-based carriers, were sold to foreign owners. US forces overseas receive support from commercial container and ro-ro services, in addition to 125 civilian-crewed ships under the Navy’s Military Sealift Command. The other rationale — indeed, for shipbuilding in any country — is to support exports. In the postwar decades, carriers like American Export Lines symbolized US export dominance. A rough analogy today is the Chinese electric car maker BYD building its own fleet of car carriers as its exports rapidly ramp up. The US will regain manufacturing, it’s hard to see Trump not accomplishing that, but if predictions are accurate, to the extent it’s dominated by high-end goods like semiconductors that can be profitably manufactured in the US, it won’t be ships but planes that will be the primary mode of shipment. The very idea of the US getting back into shipbuilding at scale, moreover, shows an erosion in acceptance of the very concept of global trade, specifically comparative advantage, as a means of building countries’ wealth and prosperity by focusing on what each does best. It is hard to see a comparative advantage to Americans’ building ships when the cost is three times what other nations’ shipbuilders charge. The $333 million per ship price charged a few years ago by the Philly Shipyard to build three 3,600 TEU ships for Matson Navigation compares to $50 million for building a ship of that same size in an Asian yard, according to carrier sources. The US-built cost would be even more today given that US-built container ships increased in price by roughly $56,000 per TEU since 2002, while foreign-built increased by less than $7,000 over the same period, according to the Cato Institute , a libertarian think-tank. And so, if it’s not military sealift or support for exports, what is the rationale? The lack of one is why criticism has been heaped on the USTR action. “The US shipbuilding sector already faces significant constraints, including a backlog of military orders and ongoing labor shortages,” said World Shipping Council president and CEO Joe Kramek. The action “is a step in the wrong direction as it will raise prices for consumers, weaken US trade and do little to revitalize the US maritime industry.” Contact Peter Tirschwell at peter.tirschwell@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Container lines

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

Questions of need, cost dog US shipbuilding ambitions

<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.

<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,” Steenhoek 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,” Steenhoek 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 .

Supply chain

Container Shipping News

Port News

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

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

Latest News

Breakbulk Quarterly

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

More News & Analysis

Questions of need, cost dog US shipbuilding ambitions

US apparel shippers brace for tariff-driven volume decline

FMC to scrutinize Chipolbrok, citing Chinese government control