<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">In a letter Thursday, less-than-truckload provider Yellow asked President Biden to intervene personally in its dispute with the Teamsters and break an impasse it claims threatens 22,000 union jobs. </div>

In a letter Thursday, less-than-truckload provider Yellow asked President Biden to intervene personally in its dispute with the Teamsters and break an impasse it claims threatens 22,000 union jobs. 

3686621_FI.jpg

<div>Yellow is appealing directly to President Joe Biden to intervene in its conflict with the Teamsters union, asking him in a letter Thursday for help in what it termed an “intractable” dispute. “Knowing of your strong commitment to union jobs, we are formally requesting your assistance in getting Yellow and the Teamsters to the table,” the less-than-truckload (LTL) trucking company said to Biden in its letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Although Yellow’s letter doesn’t recommend a specific course of action, it raises hope for the type of <a>direct executive action</a> Biden took last...

Yellow is appealing directly to President Joe Biden to intervene in its conflict with the Teamsters union, asking him in a letter Thursday for help in what it termed an “intractable” dispute. “Knowing of your strong commitment to union jobs, we are formally requesting your assistance in getting Yellow and the Teamsters to the table,” the less-than-truckload (LTL) trucking company said to Biden in its letter, a copy of which was obtained by the Journal of Commerce. Although Yellow’s letter doesn’t recommend a specific course of action, it raises hope for the type of direct executive action Biden took last year to avoid a nationwide railroad strike. The White House and the Teamsters did not respond to requests for comment on the letter. The company and union are at an impasse over a proposed restructuring that would blend the networks of regional carriers Holland and New Penn with national carrier YRC Freight, creating “One Yellow.” The restructuring is needed to secure refinancing of $1.3 billion in long-term debt, Yellow said. Yellow has said it could run out of cash by mid-July, putting 22,000 Teamster jobs at stake. The company had already asked the administration for help arranging a meeting with the Teamsters, but the union rebuffed the White House, according to a lawsuit filed by Yellow Tuesday. The company also said it was rebuffed by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). “In recent weeks, we have worked closely with the White House, the Department of Labor and the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service to resolve this matter, save jobs and prevent an already fragile supply chain from breaking,” Yellow said in its letter to Biden. “Despite support from your administration, these efforts have proven unsuccessful at getting both sides to the table to discuss a way forward. “We have been very clear … that we stand ready to negotiate any time and any place,” the company added. Yellow noted that it has trained more than 3,000 commercial truck drivers through its partnership with the Labor Department. The company also pointed out that US taxpayers hold 30% of Yellow’s stock, thanks to a deal that gave the company a $700 million US Treasury loan from COVID-19 relief funds in 2020, saving it from bankruptcy. “That equity would be wiped out, should the company go out of business,” Yellow said. The company also questioned whether its 22,000 union workers would be able to find new jobs in an LTL sector dominated by non-union carriers. The three major unionized LTL trucking providers — Yellow, TForce Freight and ABF Freight — accounted for about $12.2 billion in annual revenue last year, about 20% of total US LTL revenue, according to data from research firm SJ Consulting Group. Yellow, TForce and ABF are the third-, sixth- and seventh-largest LTL carriers by revenue, respectively, according to SJ Consulting Group data. The largest two LTL carriers are non-union companies, FedEx Freight and Old Dominion Freight Line. “The notion that another union job” is waiting for Yellow employees “is simply not credible,” the company said. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com and follow him on Twitter: @willbcassidy .

Trucking News

Trucking labor

Surface

Yellow asks Biden to help bring Teamsters ‘to the table’ 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The STB now has 30 days to decide whether the application is complete; a formal review by the regulator would likely stretch for more than a year and include public hearings.</div>

The STB now has 30 days to decide whether the application is complete; a formal review by the regulator would likely stretch for more than a year and include public hearings.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Union Pacific on Thursday refiled its formal application to acquire Norfolk Southern with US regulators on Thursday, arguing that additional analysis shows the merger would take more freight moves off highways than originally thought. The updated application to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) calls for 2.1 million truck moves converted to rail, including 1.2 million truckload-to-intermodal conversions. That’s up from 2 million and 1.17 million, respectively, in the original application filed last December that the STB <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/stb-rejects-up-ns-merger-application-as-incomplete-6154074">rejected as “incomplete” in mid-January</a>. UP also revised the number of long-haul drays eliminated annually to 70,000 moves compared with 67,000 in the first application. The eliminated drays would primarily come between Chicago to Ohio and Michigan, and Memphis to Alabama. The revised estimates were made possible because UP received access to other Class I volume data that was not available when it submitted the prior application. The STB now has 30 days to decide whether the application is complete. If the new filing passes that threshold, the formal review by the regulator would likely stretch for more than a year and include public hearings. “I have personally witnessed the benefits to Canada of two transcontinental [freight] railroads,” UP CEO Jim Vena wrote in the new application. “American industry deserves an equally efficient supply chain within its own borders.” Vena also argued that unified rail systems in China, India and Mexico have supported economic growth. He said the merger would save shippers $3.5 billion annually across all commodity groups. For intermodal customers, UP is promising faster service, new long-haul lanes and a slightly larger shift of freight off the highway. But the revised filing also puts more weight on the question regulators and shippers will care about most: Can the network handle that growth without sacrificing reliability? And will the UP-NS combination enhance competition in a way that’s not achievable through better cooperation between railroads? <h3>New and updated routes </h3>The most significant addition for intermodal customers is a new expedited Northern California-to-Southeast service that was not included in the UP’s December filing. The proposed lane would begin in Lathrop, east of Oakland, move through St. Louis and terminate in Charlotte. UP said the service would take 109 hours from origin to destination, versus 108 hours by truck. Containers moving to Atlanta and Jacksonville would connect to a second train in Charlotte for the final leg. The revised filing also addresses the Meridian Speedway, the roughly 300-mile corridor across Louisiana and Mississippi that remains a flashpoint between UP-NS and majority owner Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC). In the December filing, UP said it would run 11,000-foot trains over Meridian. But CPKC, which controls traffic on the route, limits train length to 8,500 feet. In the revised filing, UP lowered its average train-length assumption to 9,000 feet and added a provision to split trains as volume grows. The filing also leaves unresolved whether the merged railroad could deliver the projected growth over the Meridian Speedway since CPKC, not UP-NS, controls all train movements. If trains must be broken into blocks, transit times lengthen and the risk of delay increases. Nevertheless, the service will still likely be faster than the BNSF Railway-CSX Transportation alternative because the length of haul through the Meridian Speedway is much shorter by distance. There were no changes to how the Meridian Speedway trains would impact domestic intermodal shippers between Los Angeles and Memphis. UP would still remove 191 containers per day from a train in Greggton, Texas, and place them onto a second train to Memphis. The route would be one of the few examples where a combined railroad would create additional work post-merger, rather than eliminate it, for intermodal customers. It is one of the clearest examples of the merger’s mixed intermodal effect: new conversion opportunities in some lanes, but more complexity and more service risk in others. Other intermodal services in the prior application remain unchanged. UP-NS would add trains from Southern California to New Jersey via Kansas City, bypassing Chicago. The application also keeps proposed services from Lathrop to New Jersey, from Southern California to Detroit, from Laredo to New Jersey, and from Houston to Atlanta. <h3>Trimming capital expenditures </h3>The revised application, however, trims the capital expenditures that UP would lay out to keep the network fluid. The December filing called for more than $1 billion in capital spending on signals, track, sidings and terminals to absorb growth without hurting service. The new filing cuts that sum to $923.3 million, which could raise the prospect of pushback during the public hearings about why UP decided to cut back on infrastructure spending. One of the biggest reductions is at UP’s Houston intermodal terminal. In December, UP said it would add 1,045 parking stalls, two new working tracks and an automated gate to support new Laredo and Houston intermodal trains. In the revised filing, that plan is scaled back to 558 parking spaces and a smaller automated gate, removing about $68 million in spending. UP said the lower investment reflects an updated analysis that shows a lower impact on terminals operations in Houston than originally anticipated. Other projects were dropped altogether. The December application included $7.4 million for 5,205 feet of support track at the Croxton intermodal terminal in New Jersey. That project is no longer in the revised plan. UP left spending unchanged for siding extensions, double-track additions and signal work across the Gulf Coast and Midwest. <h3>Opposition organizing </h3>UP’s revised application will nonetheless face swift resistance. Earlier this week, a new group was formed called the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition, which organized existing merger opponents such as BNSF, CPKC, the Teamsters Rail Conference, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Chemistry Council under a single umbrella. The group released a report Wednesday that included a survey claiming that 71% of those polled oppose the merger after learning about its impacts, and that 68% believe the merged railroad would keep the promised cost savings for itself rather than pass them onto shippers. “This did not begin with a customer asking for a UP-NS merger to happen,” BNSF CEO Katie Famer said in a statement from Stop the Rail Merger Coalition. “It’s driven by Wall Street on the promise of a big shareholder payout. It will eliminate competition, raise costs for consumers, and destabilize the supply chain that powers the American economy.” Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@spglobal.com">ari.ashe@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Union Pacific on Thursday refiled its formal application to acquire Norfolk Southern with US regulators on Thursday, arguing that additional analysis shows the merger would take more freight moves off highways than originally thought. The updated application to the US Surface Transportation Board (STB) calls for 2.1 million truck moves converted to rail, including 1.2 million truckload-to-intermodal conversions. That’s up from 2 million and 1.17 million, respectively, in the original application filed last December that the STB rejected as “incomplete” in mid-January . UP also revised the number of long-haul drays eliminated annually to 70,000 moves compared with 67,000 in the first application. The eliminated drays would primarily come between Chicago to Ohio and Michigan, and Memphis to Alabama. The revised estimates were made possible because UP received access to other Class I volume data that was not available when it submitted the prior application. The STB now has 30 days to decide whether the application is complete. If the new filing passes that threshold, the formal review by the regulator would likely stretch for more than a year and include public hearings. “I have personally witnessed the benefits to Canada of two transcontinental [freight] railroads,” UP CEO Jim Vena wrote in the new application. “American industry deserves an equally efficient supply chain within its own borders.” Vena also argued that unified rail systems in China, India and Mexico have supported economic growth. He said the merger would save shippers $3.5 billion annually across all commodity groups. For intermodal customers, UP is promising faster service, new long-haul lanes and a slightly larger shift of freight off the highway. But the revised filing also puts more weight on the question regulators and shippers will care about most: Can the network handle that growth without sacrificing reliability? And will the UP-NS combination enhance competition in a way that’s not achievable through better cooperation between railroads? New and updated routes The most significant addition for intermodal customers is a new expedited Northern California-to-Southeast service that was not included in the UP’s December filing. The proposed lane would begin in Lathrop, east of Oakland, move through St. Louis and terminate in Charlotte. UP said the service would take 109 hours from origin to destination, versus 108 hours by truck. Containers moving to Atlanta and Jacksonville would connect to a second train in Charlotte for the final leg. The revised filing also addresses the Meridian Speedway, the roughly 300-mile corridor across Louisiana and Mississippi that remains a flashpoint between UP-NS and majority owner Canadian Pacific Kansas City (CPKC). In the December filing, UP said it would run 11,000-foot trains over Meridian. But CPKC, which controls traffic on the route, limits train length to 8,500 feet. In the revised filing, UP lowered its average train-length assumption to 9,000 feet and added a provision to split trains as volume grows. The filing also leaves unresolved whether the merged railroad could deliver the projected growth over the Meridian Speedway since CPKC, not UP-NS, controls all train movements. If trains must be broken into blocks, transit times lengthen and the risk of delay increases. Nevertheless, the service will still likely be faster than the BNSF Railway-CSX Transportation alternative because the length of haul through the Meridian Speedway is much shorter by distance. There were no changes to how the Meridian Speedway trains would impact domestic intermodal shippers between Los Angeles and Memphis. UP would still remove 191 containers per day from a train in Greggton, Texas, and place them onto a second train to Memphis. The route would be one of the few examples where a combined railroad would create additional work post-merger, rather than eliminate it, for intermodal customers. It is one of the clearest examples of the merger’s mixed intermodal effect: new conversion opportunities in some lanes, but more complexity and more service risk in others. Other intermodal services in the prior application remain unchanged. UP-NS would add trains from Southern California to New Jersey via Kansas City, bypassing Chicago. The application also keeps proposed services from Lathrop to New Jersey, from Southern California to Detroit, from Laredo to New Jersey, and from Houston to Atlanta. Trimming capital expenditures The revised application, however, trims the capital expenditures that UP would lay out to keep the network fluid. The December filing called for more than $1 billion in capital spending on signals, track, sidings and terminals to absorb growth without hurting service. The new filing cuts that sum to $923.3 million, which could raise the prospect of pushback during the public hearings about why UP decided to cut back on infrastructure spending. One of the biggest reductions is at UP’s Houston intermodal terminal. In December, UP said it would add 1,045 parking stalls, two new working tracks and an automated gate to support new Laredo and Houston intermodal trains. In the revised filing, that plan is scaled back to 558 parking spaces and a smaller automated gate, removing about $68 million in spending. UP said the lower investment reflects an updated analysis that shows a lower impact on terminals operations in Houston than originally anticipated. Other projects were dropped altogether. The December application included $7.4 million for 5,205 feet of support track at the Croxton intermodal terminal in New Jersey. That project is no longer in the revised plan. UP left spending unchanged for siding extensions, double-track additions and signal work across the Gulf Coast and Midwest. Opposition organizing UP’s revised application will nonetheless face swift resistance. Earlier this week, a new group was formed called the Stop the Rail Merger Coalition, which organized existing merger opponents such as BNSF, CPKC, the Teamsters Rail Conference, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Chemistry Council under a single umbrella. The group released a report Wednesday that included a survey claiming that 71% of those polled oppose the merger after learning about its impacts, and that 68% believe the merged railroad would keep the promised cost savings for itself rather than pass them onto shippers. “This did not begin with a customer asking for a UP-NS merger to happen,” BNSF CEO Katie Famer said in a statement from Stop the Rail Merger Coalition. “It’s driven by Wall Street on the promise of a big shareholder payout. It will eliminate competition, raise costs for consumers, and destabilize the supply chain that powers the American economy.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@spglobal.com .

Rail News

Transport, Trade and Regulation News

North-American rail

Intermodal providers

UP’s revised filing for NS merger boosts number of freight conversions

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The carrier and ports group said revenue on all major trades, except its domestic network, fell in the first quarter, resulting in a 13% drop in revenue from container shipping. </div>

The carrier and ports group said revenue on all major trades, except its domestic network, fell in the first quarter, resulting in a 13% drop in revenue from container shipping.

<div class="phx-topic">Cosco Shipping is redoubling efforts to expand into developing markets, including Latin America and Africa, in the face of a tougher economic and geopolitical environment, the container and ports group said. “Impacted by conflicts in the Middle East, the safety and stability of global shipping faced significant challenges,” the carrier said in a first-quarter earnings statement late Wednesday. “In the face of rapidly changing international political and economic conditions...(Cosco is)...making sustained efforts, particularly in the development of emerging markets, the establishment of a global digital supply chain product system, and digital and intelligent innovation,” it said. Cosco was commenting as it reported a 49% drop in first-quarter net profits to $861 million due to plunging freight rates, despite an increase in volumes. Total Q1 revenue fell 11% to $7.6 billion. “The group’s container shipping business experienced a year-on-year decrease in revenue per TEU and a year-on-year decrease in operating performance,” Cosco said, noting that the average China Export Containerized Freight Index (CCFI) fell 16.32% year over year in the first quarter. The carrier’s revenue per TEU on international routes fell 15% to $1,110 in the first quarter. Cosco said revenue on all its major trades except its domestic network fell in the first quarter, resulting in a 13% drop in revenue from container shipping, to $6.6 billion. That came despite a 6.7% increase in container volumes, to 6.9 million TEUs. The biggest drop in Cosco’s Q1 revenue was on trans-Pacific trades, which fell 23% to $1.8 billion even as liftings slipped just 1% to 1.2 million TEUs. Trans-Atlantic, Latin America and Africa trades saw a combined 22% revenue decline to $962 million, while liftings were 1.6% lower at 757,524 TEUs. Revenue from Asia–Europe services fell 10% to $1.4 billion in the first quarter despite a 14% increase in volumes to 1 million TEUs. Cosco’s ports subsidiary recorded a 2% rise in first quarter net profit to $86 million, while revenue was 10% higher at $421 million. Total container throughput at Cosco terminals climbed 9% year over year to 39 million TEUs. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com</a>. </div>

Cosco Shipping is redoubling efforts to expand into developing markets, including Latin America and Africa, in the face of a tougher economic and geopolitical environment, the container and ports group said. “Impacted by conflicts in the Middle East, the safety and stability of global shipping faced significant challenges,” the carrier said in a first-quarter earnings statement late Wednesday. “In the face of rapidly changing international political and economic conditions...(Cosco is)...making sustained efforts, particularly in the development of emerging markets, the establishment of a global digital supply chain product system, and digital and intelligent innovation,” it said. Cosco was commenting as it reported a 49% drop in first-quarter net profits to $861 million due to plunging freight rates, despite an increase in volumes. Total Q1 revenue fell 11% to $7.6 billion. “The group’s container shipping business experienced a year-on-year decrease in revenue per TEU and a year-on-year decrease in operating performance,” Cosco said, noting that the average China Export Containerized Freight Index (CCFI) fell 16.32% year over year in the first quarter. The carrier’s revenue per TEU on international routes fell 15% to $1,110 in the first quarter. Cosco said revenue on all its major trades except its domestic network fell in the first quarter, resulting in a 13% drop in revenue from container shipping, to $6.6 billion. That came despite a 6.7% increase in container volumes, to 6.9 million TEUs. The biggest drop in Cosco’s Q1 revenue was on trans-Pacific trades, which fell 23% to $1.8 billion even as liftings slipped just 1% to 1.2 million TEUs. Trans-Atlantic, Latin America and Africa trades saw a combined 22% revenue decline to $962 million, while liftings were 1.6% lower at 757,524 TEUs. Revenue from Asia–Europe services fell 10% to $1.4 billion in the first quarter despite a 14% increase in volumes to 1 million TEUs. Cosco’s ports subsidiary recorded a 2% rise in first quarter net profit to $86 million, while revenue was 10% higher at $421 million. Total container throughput at Cosco terminals climbed 9% year over year to 39 million TEUs. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com .

Container lines

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

Trans-Pacific

Container Shipping News

Maritime

Cosco doubles down on emerging trades as Q1 net profit plunges 49% 

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">The Cosco subsidiary said the 13,600-TEU ships have been ordered from Shanghai-based shipyard Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding for delivery between 2028 and 2030.</div>

The Cosco subsidiary said the 13,600-TEU ships have been ordered from Shanghai-based shipyard Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding for delivery between 2028 and 2030.

<div class="phx-topic">Hong Kong-based OOCL has ordered its first liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels with a $2.2 billion deal for a dozen 13,600-TEU dual-fuel ships as part of a shift to more environmentally friendly vessels, the carrier said Thursday. The Cosco Shipping subsidiary said the ships have been ordered from Shanghai-based shipyard Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding for delivery between 2028 and 2030. The choice of LNG and other green fuel technologies “is expected to reduce the need to purchase carbon credits,” OOCL said in a filing to the Hong Kong stock exchange. The size of the ships meant they “are versatile and suitable for deployment across a wide range of trade routes and terminals,” the carrier added. “...The vessels will enhance the group’s ability to serve diversified cargo demand.” OOCL’s order reinforces LNG as the next-generation fuel of choice for carriers renewing their fleets. LNG now accounts for around 83% of the dual-fuel container ships on order, or about 6.4 million TEUs in capacity terms, according to data on the Journal of Commerce’s Gateway platform. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="ef78ab1f-3609-44d0-a713-fb260bc40609"></dynamic-object></div>OOCL said it invited quotes from at least three shipbuilders, but two declined to bid due to limited shipbuilding slot availability and resources. Hudong-Zhonghua’s price of $185 million per ship is comparable to the prevailing market price of new LNG dual-fuel powered container vessels of similar tonnage. The latest order takes OOCL’s backlog of new vessels to 18 ships after it signed agreements with Seaspan <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/volatile-shipping-market-drags-down-oocls-2025-financial-results-6185356">to charter six 13,000-TEU container vessels</a>. Those ships are expected to be delivered from the fourth quarter this year through the first quarter of 2028. The orders announced Thursday are the first that OOCL has placed for owned 13,000-TEU ships since 2013, the carrier said. Contact Keith Wallis at <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Hong Kong-based OOCL has ordered its first liquefied natural gas (LNG) vessels with a $2.2 billion deal for a dozen 13,600-TEU dual-fuel ships as part of a shift to more environmentally friendly vessels, the carrier said Thursday. The Cosco Shipping subsidiary said the ships have been ordered from Shanghai-based shipyard Hudong-Zhonghua Shipbuilding for delivery between 2028 and 2030. The choice of LNG and other green fuel technologies “is expected to reduce the need to purchase carbon credits,” OOCL said in a filing to the Hong Kong stock exchange. The size of the ships meant they “are versatile and suitable for deployment across a wide range of trade routes and terminals,” the carrier added. “...The vessels will enhance the group’s ability to serve diversified cargo demand.” OOCL’s order reinforces LNG as the next-generation fuel of choice for carriers renewing their fleets. LNG now accounts for around 83% of the dual-fuel container ships on order, or about 6.4 million TEUs in capacity terms, according to data on the Journal of Commerce’s Gateway platform. OOCL said it invited quotes from at least three shipbuilders, but two declined to bid due to limited shipbuilding slot availability and resources. Hudong-Zhonghua’s price of $185 million per ship is comparable to the prevailing market price of new LNG dual-fuel powered container vessels of similar tonnage. The latest order takes OOCL’s backlog of new vessels to 18 ships after it signed agreements with Seaspan to charter six 13,000-TEU container vessels . Those ships are expected to be delivered from the fourth quarter this year through the first quarter of 2028. The orders announced Thursday are the first that OOCL has placed for owned 13,000-TEU ships since 2013, the carrier said. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

OOCL orders its first LNG-fueled ships with $2 billion deal for 12 vessels

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">While acknowledging a “volatile geopolitical landscape,” the carrier nonetheless says its forecast for the year assumes “operational conditions will stabilize to pre-conflict levels by summer.”</div>

While acknowledging a “volatile geopolitical landscape,” the carrier nonetheless says its forecast for the year assumes “operational conditions will stabilize to pre-conflict levels by summer.”

<div class="phx-topic">Ocean Network Express (ONE) is forecasting an 11% drop in net profit for the coming year, to $300 million, due to the impact of the war in the Middle East, carrier said Thursday after unveiling results for its 2025 fiscal year. The carrier said it expects to report a $50 million net loss for the first half of its fiscal year between April and October, followed by a $350 million net profit for its fiscal second half that ends in March 2027. ”The FY2026 forecast reflects the continued impact of the Middle East conflict and assumes that operational conditions will stabilize to pre-conflict levels by summer,” the carrier said in its earnings statement. ONE, however, cautioned that “forecasting for FY2026 remains challenging due to the volatile geopolitical landscape, particularly in the Middle East.” The Iran war also meant “the prospect of resuming passage through the Red Sea–Suez Canal route has become even more uncertain, and vessels continue to reroute via the Cape of Good Hope,” it added. <h3>Declines in net profit, revenue </h3>The cautionary outlook came as ONE reported net profit of $338 million for its fiscal year ended March 31. While that was down 92% from the $4.2 billion recorded for fiscal 2024, it was higher than the $310 million ONE forecast last November. Revenue was down 14% to $16.6 billion due to lower freight rates for much of the fiscal year, while liftings were 1% higher at 12.9 million TEUs. The second half of ONE’s fiscal year was buoyed by a rebound in freight rates between January and March and increased demand on the Asia-Europe trade ahead of the Lunar New Year that resulted in a fourth-quarter profit of $55 million. The healthy Asia-Europe demand helped offset a weaker-than-expected pre-Lunar New Year cargo rush on the eastbound trans-Pacific. "Despite heightened volatility in the fourth quarter of FY2025, our disciplined cost control and operational efficiency enabled us to deliver a profitable full-year result,” ONE CEO Jeremy Nixon said in the earnings statement. “We continue to navigate a complex and volatile global environment as we enter the new fiscal year, and the safety of our people as well as the security of our operations and customers’ cargo remain our top priorities.” Nixon <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/jeremy-nixon-to-step-down-as-one-ceo-after-eight-years-at-the-helm-6175802">will step down from the CEO role on July 1</a>after more than eight years at the helm, and be replaced by Till Ole Barrelet from Emirates Shipping Line. Nixon will remain with ONE as senior advisor. <a href="mailto:keithwallis@hotmail.com">Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.</a></div>

Ocean Network Express (ONE) is forecasting an 11% drop in net profit for the coming year, to $300 million, due to the impact of the war in the Middle East, carrier said Thursday after unveiling results for its 2025 fiscal year. The carrier said it expects to report a $50 million net loss for the first half of its fiscal year between April and October, followed by a $350 million net profit for its fiscal second half that ends in March 2027. ”The FY2026 forecast reflects the continued impact of the Middle East conflict and assumes that operational conditions will stabilize to pre-conflict levels by summer,” the carrier said in its earnings statement. ONE, however, cautioned that “forecasting for FY2026 remains challenging due to the volatile geopolitical landscape, particularly in the Middle East.” The Iran war also meant “the prospect of resuming passage through the Red Sea–Suez Canal route has become even more uncertain, and vessels continue to reroute via the Cape of Good Hope,” it added. Declines in net profit, revenue The cautionary outlook came as ONE reported net profit of $338 million for its fiscal year ended March 31. While that was down 92% from the $4.2 billion recorded for fiscal 2024, it was higher than the $310 million ONE forecast last November. Revenue was down 14% to $16.6 billion due to lower freight rates for much of the fiscal year, while liftings were 1% higher at 12.9 million TEUs. The second half of ONE’s fiscal year was buoyed by a rebound in freight rates between January and March and increased demand on the Asia-Europe trade ahead of the Lunar New Year that resulted in a fourth-quarter profit of $55 million. The healthy Asia-Europe demand helped offset a weaker-than-expected pre-Lunar New Year cargo rush on the eastbound trans-Pacific. "Despite heightened volatility in the fourth quarter of FY2025, our disciplined cost control and operational efficiency enabled us to deliver a profitable full-year result,” ONE CEO Jeremy Nixon said in the earnings statement. “We continue to navigate a complex and volatile global environment as we enter the new fiscal year, and the safety of our people as well as the security of our operations and customers’ cargo remain our top priorities.” Nixon will step down from the CEO role on July 1 after more than eight years at the helm, and be replaced by Till Ole Barrelet from Emirates Shipping Line. Nixon will remain with ONE as senior advisor. Contact Keith Wallis at keithwallis@hotmail.com.

ONE expects 11% decline in FY26 net profit due to war in Middle East

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Mid-size importers are generally satisfied with the base rates contained in their 2026-27 service contracts, but many are at the mercy of ocean carriers as to how emergency fuel surcharges are being handled.</div>

Mid-size importers are generally satisfied with the base rates contained in their 2026-27 service contracts, but many are at the mercy of ocean carriers as to how emergency fuel surcharges are being handled.

<div class="phx-topic">Mid-size US retailers and direct importers of Asia-sourced goods are finalizing 2026-27 service contracts with ocean carriers at base rates roughly comparable to last year — but with hundreds of dollars of additional bunker fuel surcharges baked in amid the war-driven jump in global oil prices. Container lines, despite facing a year of flat or negative volume growth and mounting global overcapacity, have generally been able to hold the line on trans-Pacific base rates while negotiating with cargo owners over how the higher fuel prices will be billed. Mid-size importers — those moving roughly 20,000 to 100,000 TEUs annually — have secured contracts in the range of $1,650 to $1,950 per FEU to the West Coast, with East Coast business about $1,000 per FEU higher, according to multiple industry sources. Those levels are comparable to the base rates in the expiring 2025-26 service contracts. However, with crude oil trading over $100 per barrel <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/hapag-lloyd-imposes-emergency-fuel-surcharges-on-third-party-feeder-cargo-6207629">due to the war in the Middle East</a> and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, carriers are approaching customers in the final stages of their 2026-27 service contract negotiations with bunker surcharges of as much as $400 per FEU, which would push the all-in freight rates to the US West Coast above $2,000 per FEU. That’s noticeably higher than last year when bunker fuel prices were stable. Most annual service contracts begin May 1 and run through April 30 of the following year. The Journal of Commerce spoke to seven ocean carriers, five forwarders, and three industry consultants for this story. “A lot of time customers push back on the surcharges, but the market is going to dictate what they are,” one carrier executive said. “Perhaps some carriers are more rigid than others as to how they apply additional surcharges, but I think that’s a matter of discussion.” Direct importers and forwarders are objecting to what they say are unilateral decisions by some carriers to change the standard bunker adjustment factor (BAF) in service contracts from a quarterly review to a monthly reset. Customers are also challenging carriers that are charging <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/carriers-handling-of-fuel-surcharges-agitates-small-midsize-trans-pac-shippers-6208047">emergency bunker surcharges (EBSs) that do not contain a clause</a> that would shift the EBS lower as oil prices drop. A second carrier executive said that given the current uncertainties due to the war in the Middle East, customers are asking shipping lines to offer guarantees and specify timelines around the bunker surcharges that are impossible to give. “If you ask a shipping line today, ‘Can you put an expiration date on the EBS, they cannot,’” the source said. A third carrier executive noted that fuel surcharges will vary noticeably based on the size of the customer and also the business relationship each carrier has with its customers. A large customer with a history of meeting the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in its annual contracts may be able to limit its fuel surcharge to as little as $100 per container, whereas smaller customers who have not booked frequently with the carrier may be offered a take-it-or-leave-it EBS of $400 per container, the carrier source explained. An industry consultant who has negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers said in order to finalize their negotiations, mid-size retailers and importers should shift their focus to fuel surcharges. “The key for shippers is don’t focus on just the base rate,” the consultant said. “Also understand what the floating bunker (charge) looks like and the emergency bunker surcharge, which at some point will go away.” The source added it is a fact that carriers are getting hit hard right now by higher fuel costs, with bunker fuel prices at major hubs, especially in Asia, essentially doubling after the war began. “It has to be passed down,” the source said. “They can’t just absorb those kinds of costs.” Carriers are including BAFs and emergency bunker surcharges in their service contract negotiations not only because they are being hit with higher bunker costs, but also because they are paying railroads and truckers more due to increased costs in those sectors, said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “They’re definitely standing firm on fuel surcharges,” Cook said of ocean carriers. “All costs are going up.” <h3>Contract extensions not a big issue </h3>In mid-April, two weeks before the May 1 start date of 2026-27 contracts, BCOs expressed concern that, facing a backlog of unsigned contracts, carriers would not be able to finalize all of the outstanding deals on time. Customers feared they would have no choice but to pay much higher spot rates until their new contracts were finalized. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast as of Wednesday were $2,767 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,767 to the East Coast, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Drewry pegged spot rates as of April 23 at $2,934 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,562 per FEU to the East Coast. In the case of both indexes, West Coast spot/freight-all-kinds rates have been above $2,000 per FEU for all of April. In their expiring 2025-26 service contracts, mid-size BCOs are paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 per FEU to the West Coast, so shipping under spot rates would add hundreds of dollars per container to the all-in rate. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="7f641553-97ec-4014-8e54-fef6408538d9"></dynamic-object></div>But most carriers this week are agreeing to give their customers an extension of their 2025-26 service contracts until mid- to late-May while new deals are finalized, sources say, thus sparing customers from the more expensive spot market. “They’re extending the contracts now,” Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said of ocean carriers. Bob Fredman, an industry consultant who for many years managed logistics for national retailers, said he encountered similar situations in years when there was a backlog of contracts waiting to be processed. The delays were often needed to wrap up the language in new contracts that went down to the wire. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a deal-breaker for anyone,” Fredman said. <h3>Carriers limiting fixed-account bookings for NVOs </h3>As is customary, carriers have waited until the final week or so before the May 1 deadline to finalize contracts with most of the non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) that book with them. That is once again the case this year, forwarders say. Some carriers are being especially restrictive as to how many containers their NVO customers can ship under their named account (NAC) rates, several forwarders said. NAC rates are fixed for the duration of the contract. Many carriers right now are requiring that NVOs book as many as four containers under higher FAK rates for each fixed-account booking. Named account rates are likely to settle in below $2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, so that means forwarders will be shipping about 80% of their containers under the higher FAK rates, the forwarders said. However, requiring that ratio is not a new strategy, especially when FAK rates are noticeably higher than the fixed rates at the time the contracts are being signed, one forwarder said. “We don’t see this as being any more prevalent than in the past,” said the source. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at <a href="mailto:bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com">bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com</a>.Mark Szakonyi contributed to this report.</div>

Mid-size US retailers and direct importers of Asia-sourced goods are finalizing 2026-27 service contracts with ocean carriers at base rates roughly comparable to last year — but with hundreds of dollars of additional bunker fuel surcharges baked in amid the war-driven jump in global oil prices. Container lines, despite facing a year of flat or negative volume growth and mounting global overcapacity, have generally been able to hold the line on trans-Pacific base rates while negotiating with cargo owners over how the higher fuel prices will be billed. Mid-size importers — those moving roughly 20,000 to 100,000 TEUs annually — have secured contracts in the range of $1,650 to $1,950 per FEU to the West Coast, with East Coast business about $1,000 per FEU higher, according to multiple industry sources. Those levels are comparable to the base rates in the expiring 2025-26 service contracts. However, with crude oil trading over $100 per barrel due to the war in the Middle East and closure of the Strait of Hormuz, carriers are approaching customers in the final stages of their 2026-27 service contract negotiations with bunker surcharges of as much as $400 per FEU, which would push the all-in freight rates to the US West Coast above $2,000 per FEU. That’s noticeably higher than last year when bunker fuel prices were stable. Most annual service contracts begin May 1 and run through April 30 of the following year. The Journal of Commerce spoke to seven ocean carriers, five forwarders, and three industry consultants for this story. “A lot of time customers push back on the surcharges, but the market is going to dictate what they are,” one carrier executive said. “Perhaps some carriers are more rigid than others as to how they apply additional surcharges, but I think that’s a matter of discussion.” Direct importers and forwarders are objecting to what they say are unilateral decisions by some carriers to change the standard bunker adjustment factor (BAF) in service contracts from a quarterly review to a monthly reset. Customers are also challenging carriers that are charging emergency bunker surcharges (EBSs) that do not contain a clause that would shift the EBS lower as oil prices drop. A second carrier executive said that given the current uncertainties due to the war in the Middle East, customers are asking shipping lines to offer guarantees and specify timelines around the bunker surcharges that are impossible to give. “If you ask a shipping line today, ‘Can you put an expiration date on the EBS, they cannot,’” the source said. A third carrier executive noted that fuel surcharges will vary noticeably based on the size of the customer and also the business relationship each carrier has with its customers. A large customer with a history of meeting the minimum quantity commitments (MQCs) in its annual contracts may be able to limit its fuel surcharge to as little as $100 per container, whereas smaller customers who have not booked frequently with the carrier may be offered a take-it-or-leave-it EBS of $400 per container, the carrier source explained. An industry consultant who has negotiated service contracts for big-box retailers said in order to finalize their negotiations, mid-size retailers and importers should shift their focus to fuel surcharges. “The key for shippers is don’t focus on just the base rate,” the consultant said. “Also understand what the floating bunker (charge) looks like and the emergency bunker surcharge, which at some point will go away.” The source added it is a fact that carriers are getting hit hard right now by higher fuel costs, with bunker fuel prices at major hubs, especially in Asia, essentially doubling after the war began. “It has to be passed down,” the source said. “They can’t just absorb those kinds of costs.” Carriers are including BAFs and emergency bunker surcharges in their service contract negotiations not only because they are being hit with higher bunker costs, but also because they are paying railroads and truckers more due to increased costs in those sectors, said Jason Cook, CEO of the forwarder Ardent Global Logistics. “They’re definitely standing firm on fuel surcharges,” Cook said of ocean carriers. “All costs are going up.” Contract extensions not a big issue In mid-April, two weeks before the May 1 start date of 2026-27 contracts, BCOs expressed concern that, facing a backlog of unsigned contracts, carriers would not be able to finalize all of the outstanding deals on time. Customers feared they would have no choice but to pay much higher spot rates until their new contracts were finalized. Spot rates from Asia to the US West Coast as of Wednesday were $2,767 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,767 to the East Coast, according to Platts, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Drewry pegged spot rates as of April 23 at $2,934 per FEU to the West Coast and $3,562 per FEU to the East Coast. In the case of both indexes, West Coast spot/freight-all-kinds rates have been above $2,000 per FEU for all of April. In their expiring 2025-26 service contracts, mid-size BCOs are paying in the range of $1,700 to $1,850 per FEU to the West Coast, so shipping under spot rates would add hundreds of dollars per container to the all-in rate. But most carriers this week are agreeing to give their customers an extension of their 2025-26 service contracts until mid- to late-May while new deals are finalized, sources say, thus sparing customers from the more expensive spot market. “They’re extending the contracts now,” Jon Monroe, who serves as an adviser to forwarders, said of ocean carriers. Bob Fredman, an industry consultant who for many years managed logistics for national retailers, said he encountered similar situations in years when there was a backlog of contracts waiting to be processed. The delays were often needed to wrap up the language in new contracts that went down to the wire. “I don’t think it’s something that’s going to be a deal-breaker for anyone,” Fredman said. Carriers limiting fixed-account bookings for NVOs As is customary, carriers have waited until the final week or so before the May 1 deadline to finalize contracts with most of the non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) that book with them. That is once again the case this year, forwarders say. Some carriers are being especially restrictive as to how many containers their NVO customers can ship under their named account (NAC) rates, several forwarders said. NAC rates are fixed for the duration of the contract. Many carriers right now are requiring that NVOs book as many as four containers under higher FAK rates for each fixed-account booking. Named account rates are likely to settle in below $2,000 per FEU to the West Coast, so that means forwarders will be shipping about 80% of their containers under the higher FAK rates, the forwarders said. However, requiring that ratio is not a new strategy, especially when FAK rates are noticeably higher than the fixed rates at the time the contracts are being signed, one forwarder said. “We don’t see this as being any more prevalent than in the past,” said the source. Contact Bill Mongelluzzo at  bill.mongelluzzo@spglobal.com . Mark Szakonyi contributed to this report.

Forwarding

Fuel charges complicate rush to ink new trans-Pacific service contracts

Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 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 SSFTW30 at checkout to save 30% on a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription! 

Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Wide Box

SPRING SALE!

Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid for first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Wide Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION

Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Wide Box

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Use code SSGFTW895 at checkout to save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Wide Box

Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Wide Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSFTW30 to save 30% on first year of a Silver or Silver Plus annual subscription!


Subscribe Now - FT to S/SP - Offer Box

Subscribe and Save

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW30 at checkout and save 30% on an annual Silver or Silver Plus subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to S/SP - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

UPGRADE TO GOLD AND SAVE: Use code GTT26W at checkout and save $900 on first year of a Gold subscription!

Upgrade Subscription

SPRING SALE: Use code SSLW895 at checkout and save $600 on an annual Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous to Gold - Offer Box

SAVE $900 ON A GOLD SUBSCRIPTION: Use code GW595 and upgrade to Gold for just $595! Valid on first year of subscription.

Upgrade Subscription - S/SP to Gold - Offer Box

SPRING SALE: Use code SSGFTW895 and save $600 on the first year of a Gold subscription!

Subscribe Now - FT to Gold - Offer Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Journal of Commerce Magazine - Rectangle Box

Journal of Commerce Magazine

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

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

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

Trucking News | Journal of Commerce

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

Rail News | Journal of Commerce

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

Latest News

More News & Analysis

UP’s revised filing for NS merger boosts number of freight conversions

Cosco doubles down on emerging trades as Q1 net profit plunges 49%

OOCL orders its first LNG-fueled ships with $2 billion deal for 12 vessels