<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">A coalition of 80 agricultural shippers is urging the Trump administration to get involved in the detention and demurrage debate now before the Federal Maritime Commission, saying the issue is even more important now amid supply chain disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.</div>

A coalition of 80 agricultural shippers is urging the Trump administration to get involved in the detention and demurrage debate now before the Federal Maritime Commission, saying the issue is even more important now amid supply chain disruptions caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

3632606_FI.jpg

<div class="phx-topic">Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified the pictured port as the Port of New York and New Jersey. JOC apologies for the error. .Agricultural and food shippers are urging the Trump administration to engage with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to address detention and demurrage penalties linked to disruptions caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, fees the shippers consider unfair.In an April 3 letter to the National Economic Council (NEC) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA), a group of 80 signatories said it’s time for the FMC to settle the three-year debate about detention and demurrage practices without further delay.The FMC sought public comment on a proposed rule, but has taken no further action since last October. Commissioner Rebecca Dye has said the agency isn’t seeking to determine “fault,” but rather the interpretative rule would provide guidance on how the agency will consider whether fees are reasonable when adjudicating a formal complaint.“We believe six months has been more than sufficient for the Commission to read 104 comments, the overwhelming majority of which support the rule,” the group wrote <a href="https://agtrans.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Ag-Exporters-Adoption-of-Propsed-Rule-on-Detention-Demurrage-Letter-Final.pdf">in the letter</a> to NEC director Larry Kudlow and USDA secretary Sonny Perdue.The call to resolve the detention and demurrage battle comes as the FMC on Monday formed supply chain innovation teams to discuss how to settle issues related to coronavirus bottlenecks. Ocean carriers, which are also working with the FMC, counter that if beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) do not retrieve, unload, and return containers, a supply chain bottleneck will harm everyone until the coronavirus pandemic passes.The ag and food shippers objected to “the ongoing unconscionable imposition of millions of dollars of unfair detention and demurrage penalties on US agriculture by ocean carriers and marine terminal operators during the coronavirus crisis,” which they believe is why the FMC must act immediately.Ocean carriers and terminal operators object to the characterization of detention and demurrage fees as unreasonable, as well as the idea that they are using the fees as a revenue generator during a time of crisis. They don’t believe the federal government should intervene into contractual issues between carriers and BCOs.The World Shipping Council (WSC), which represents approximately 90 percent of the global liner ship capacity, said the first draft of interpretive rulemaking was too broad and exceeds the powers afforded to the commissioners via the Shipping Act of 1984.<h2>How coronavirus has shaped the conversation</h2>Resolution to the detention and demurrage conversation has taken on new urgency as coronavirus closures have rapidly broken down the traditional international supply chain in waves. In February and into early March, with Chinese factories shut down and sailings being blanked, detention was a <a href="https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/truckers-urge-fmc-monitor-covid-19-related-fees_20200306.html">critical issue</a> for BCOs and truckers unable to find a place to return empty containers, although terminal operators countered that truckers often cause the very issue they complain about by canceling or missing appointments with little notice.“About six or seven weeks ago, it was pretty bad. We personally had over 1,000 containers sitting either in our yard or at trusted facilities that we weren't being able to pick up because of the closures that the marine terminals implemented,” Robert Loya, vice president of drayage provider CMI West, said during the JOC webcast “<a href="https://onlinexperiences.com/scripts/Server.nxp?LASCmd=AI:4;F:QS!10100&amp;ShowUUID=4D6DA7C5-9C7C-4B04-9F13-9ECDE96271D4&amp;AffiliateData=%5BW20402HomeOD%5D">TPM20: What We Missed — The Trucking and Intermodal Outlook,</a>” on April 2. “Despite the fact that marine terminals are opening more gates, we're still having trouble making appointments to return equipment.”The primary concern, though, has shifted to how BCOs will handle laden containers if their distribution centers are shut down, or they are suppliers to companies that are closed. BCOs have used <a href="https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/demurrage-fears-rise-china-boxes-arrive-locked-down-regions_20200402.html">detention in transit </a>(DIT) requests to keep containers in international markets where storage costs are lower, while <a href="https://www.joc.com/port-news/us-ports/us-port-congestion-threat-demands-united-industry-response_20200402.html">port authorities and ocean carriers </a>have provided storage options in the US.Rachael Acker, logistics director for Wolverine Worldwide, warned BCOs not to leave containers in terminals because ports are not mobile warehouses.“Work directly with your forwarder or ocean liner to come up with solutions that are beneficial for both sides,” she said on the JOC webcast. “As shippers, we really should be partnering to find the best solutions for our businesses, carriers, and terminals to keep cargo flow fluid.”The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) emphasized emptying and returning containers, if at all possible. Otherwise, bottlenecks are likely.“Containers sitting at the ports and rail ramps would quickly tie up space which would impact the unloading of trains and discharging of vessels. Containers stored on chassis at the rail ramps or at shippers’ facilities would create a chassis shortage which would then prevent other units from being picked up and result in the same negative impact to train and vessel operations,” OCEMA wrote in a March 30 statement.How to accomplish this is a question before the FMC supply chain teams. The FMC has asked each member to discuss what all stakeholders can do to address existing bottlenecks and restore fluidity.<h2>What ocean carriers, port authorities are doing</h2>Mediterranean Shipping Co. unveiled a <a href="https://www.joc.com/maritime-news/demurrage-fears-rise-china-boxes-arrive-locked-down-regions_20200402.html">“Suspension of Transit”</a> (SOT) program at six transit hubs in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas. Maersk Line is similarly offering to slow down supply chains by extending transit times and storing cargo in transshipment hubs with a longer layover, or storing containers at yards and depots at origin or destination ports. And port authorities in Georgia, Virginia, and Washington state have also offered in-terminal or near-terminal storage options for BCOs.“Shipping companies are offering solutions including extended transit times, storage in transit, and other innovative approaches, but at the end of the day everyone in the supply chain must remain focused on keeping cargo moving through the ports,” WSC wrote in a <a href="http://www.worldshipping.org/industry-issues/coronavirus-covid19/maintaining-flow-of-goods-covid19">recent statement on coronavirus</a>. “This issue cannot become ‘someone else’s problem.’ It is everyone’s problem, and the pain and the solutions must be shared.”Contact Ari Ashe at <a href="mailto:ari.ashe@ihsmarkit.com">ari.ashe@ihsmarkit.com</a> and follow him on Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/@arijashe">@arijashe</a>.</div>

Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified the pictured port as the Port of New York and New Jersey. JOC apologies for the error. . Agricultural and food shippers are urging the Trump administration to engage with the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) to address detention and demurrage penalties linked to disruptions caused by the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, fees the shippers consider unfair. In an April 3 letter to the National Economic Council (NEC) and US Department of Agriculture (USDA), a group of 80 signatories said it’s time for the FMC to settle the three-year debate about detention and demurrage practices without further delay. The FMC sought public comment on a proposed rule, but has taken no further action since last October. Commissioner Rebecca Dye has said the agency isn’t seeking to determine “fault,” but rather the interpretative rule would provide guidance on how the agency will consider whether fees are reasonable when adjudicating a formal complaint. “We believe six months has been more than sufficient for the Commission to read 104 comments, the overwhelming majority of which support the rule,” the group wrote in the letter to NEC director Larry Kudlow and USDA secretary Sonny Perdue. The call to resolve the detention and demurrage battle comes as the FMC on Monday formed supply chain innovation teams to discuss how to settle issues related to coronavirus bottlenecks. Ocean carriers, which are also working with the FMC, counter that if beneficial cargo owners (BCOs) do not retrieve, unload, and return containers, a supply chain bottleneck will harm everyone until the coronavirus pandemic passes. The ag and food shippers objected to “the ongoing unconscionable imposition of millions of dollars of unfair detention and demurrage penalties on US agriculture by ocean carriers and marine terminal operators during the coronavirus crisis,” which they believe is why the FMC must act immediately. Ocean carriers and terminal operators object to the characterization of detention and demurrage fees as unreasonable, as well as the idea that they are using the fees as a revenue generator during a time of crisis. They don’t believe the federal government should intervene into contractual issues between carriers and BCOs. The World Shipping Council (WSC), which represents approximately 90 percent of the global liner ship capacity, said the first draft of interpretive rulemaking was too broad and exceeds the powers afforded to the commissioners via the Shipping Act of 1984. How coronavirus has shaped the conversation Resolution to the detention and demurrage conversation has taken on new urgency as coronavirus closures have rapidly broken down the traditional international supply chain in waves. In February and into early March, with Chinese factories shut down and sailings being blanked, detention was a critical issue for BCOs and truckers unable to find a place to return empty containers, although terminal operators countered that truckers often cause the very issue they complain about by canceling or missing appointments with little notice. “About six or seven weeks ago, it was pretty bad. We personally had over 1,000 containers sitting either in our yard or at trusted facilities that we weren't being able to pick up because of the closures that the marine terminals implemented,” Robert Loya, vice president of drayage provider CMI West, said during the JOC webcast “ TPM20: What We Missed — The Trucking and Intermodal Outlook, ” on April 2. “Despite the fact that marine terminals are opening more gates, we're still having trouble making appointments to return equipment.” The primary concern, though, has shifted to how BCOs will handle laden containers if their distribution centers are shut down, or they are suppliers to companies that are closed. BCOs have used detention in transit (DIT) requests to keep containers in international markets where storage costs are lower, while port authorities and ocean carriers have provided storage options in the US. Rachael Acker, logistics director for Wolverine Worldwide, warned BCOs not to leave containers in terminals because ports are not mobile warehouses. “Work directly with your forwarder or ocean liner to come up with solutions that are beneficial for both sides,” she said on the JOC webcast. “As shippers, we really should be partnering to find the best solutions for our businesses, carriers, and terminals to keep cargo flow fluid.” The Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association (OCEMA) emphasized emptying and returning containers, if at all possible. Otherwise, bottlenecks are likely. “Containers sitting at the ports and rail ramps would quickly tie up space which would impact the unloading of trains and discharging of vessels. Containers stored on chassis at the rail ramps or at shippers’ facilities would create a chassis shortage which would then prevent other units from being picked up and result in the same negative impact to train and vessel operations,” OCEMA wrote in a March 30 statement. How to accomplish this is a question before the FMC supply chain teams. The FMC has asked each member to discuss what all stakeholders can do to address existing bottlenecks and restore fluidity. What ocean carriers, port authorities are doing Mediterranean Shipping Co. unveiled a “Suspension of Transit” (SOT) program at six transit hubs in Asia, the Middle East, Europe, and the Americas. Maersk Line is similarly offering to slow down supply chains by extending transit times and storing cargo in transshipment hubs with a longer layover, or storing containers at yards and depots at origin or destination ports. And port authorities in Georgia, Virginia, and Washington state have also offered in-terminal or near-terminal storage options for BCOs. “Shipping companies are offering solutions including extended transit times, storage in transit, and other innovative approaches, but at the end of the day everyone in the supply chain must remain focused on keeping cargo moving through the ports,” WSC wrote in a recent statement on coronavirus . “This issue cannot become ‘someone else’s problem.’ It is everyone’s problem, and the pain and the solutions must be shared.” Contact Ari Ashe at ari.ashe@ihsmarkit.com and follow him on Twitter: @arijashe .

Marine terminals

Ag shippers urge Trump administration to intervene on detention, demurrage

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Shippers and ocean carriers told the Journal of Commerce they are reviewing the USTR actions to estimate how the fees will flow down to freight costs. </div>

Shippers and ocean carriers told the Journal of Commerce they are reviewing the USTR actions to estimate how the fees will flow down to freight costs.

Feature image

<div class="phx-topic">Cosco Shipping says new fees that Chinese carriers and ships will be forced to pay for calling the US — possibly as high as $8 million to $10 million per voyage, according to one analyst — are unfair and will “distort” the ocean shipping market. That comes as other ocean carriers grapple with the impact of the fees on freight costs and how to redraw their networks to avoid them. Cosco Shipping Corporation, the container line’s parent, said in a statement Monday that the US Trade Representative (USTR) made a “discriminatory decision” in <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">issuing new fees against China’s maritime industry</a>. It said the charges unveiled Friday against China-based ocean carriers and Chinese-built ships in all other fleets will put <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-tax-would-scramble-ocean-services-raise-shipper-costs-drewry-5952046">global supply chains at risk of higher costs and result in less-efficient service</a>. “We firmly oppose the [USTR’s] accusations and the subsequent measures,” Cosco said. “Such measures not only distort fair competition and impede the normal functioning of the global shipping industry, but also threaten its stable and sustainable development.” Barring their rescission, the fees are the USTR’s final actions against China’s carriers and container ships and will take effect in October. The fees will only be charged on the first US port of call on a vessel string, unlike the per-port fee schedule in the original USTR plan. The revised per-voyage fee will be charged a maximum of five times per year on each affected vessel. <h3>Confusion on net tonnage </h3><a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-port-fees-could-hit-chinese-ships-under-trump-trade-proposal-5949409">While less draconian than the initial USTR proposal</a>, Cosco and its Hong Kong subsidiary OOCL face fees that are three times higher than what would be charged to all other ocean carriers. The USTR said the goal of the fees is to “disincentivize” shippers from using China’s ocean carriers. Starting this October, China’s ocean carriers will have to pay $50 per net ton of a vessel arriving at US ports. The fee goes up $30 each year on the anniversary of the USTR’s actions, topping out at $140 in 2028. 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. 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. Shippers and ocean carriers told the Journal of Commerce that they are reviewing the USTR actions to estimate how the fees will flow down to freight costs. But until there’s more clarity from the USTR, the fees are best guesses at this point. The fees are based on a ship’s “net tonnage,” but the USTR’s order does not include a definition of net tonnage. According to the US Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, net tonnage refers to a ship’s internal volume for cargo and is not measured in tons similar to a ship’s deadweight. The US signed a 1969 treaty that bound it to an international convention on measuring net tonnage that is included on a ship’s documentation. However, the Coast Guard noted that there are other ways to measure net tonnage that account for different types of vessels. Data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global, shows the net tonnage of Chinese-built ships of 12,000-TEU to 15,000-TEU capacity can range anywhere from 60,000 to 85,000. Sea-web uses the 1969 international convention on net tonnage. An executive with an independent ocean carrier told the Journal of Commerce that its US services might typically include Chinese-built ships of 8,500-TEU capacity and net tonnage of about 64,000. That would result in a total estimated fee of about $1.2 million, which would average out to approximately $275 to $300 per container, assuming the ship is full at 4,000 containers. The $300 estimate “is in the range of what we are expecting,” the source said. “But we will reshuffle our vessels to limit exposure to USTR fees, so it’s likely to be less overall,” he added. In contrast, the 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Rose, which calls the US East Coast, has net tonnage of 84,940. That would put its port call fee at over $4 million, equating to about $600 per container assuming it is carrying over 6,000 containers. An executive with a European alliance carrier said multiple factors make a per-container rate difficult to estimate at this point, including the fact that ships are not always arriving in port full. Net tonnage generally refers to a ship’s internal volume, but container ships also carry freight on top of their hatches. The source said the USTR fees will result in costs “probably higher” than $300 per container. <h3>Ocean Alliance in focus </h3>Whatever fees other container lines face, Cosco and OOCL face triple the costs. That has some industry watchers looking for both carriers to shuffle US services offered under the Ocean Alliance, alongside partners CMA CGM and Evergreen Marine. Thanks to their role among China’s exporters, Cosco and OOCL have the leading market share in trans-Pacific services to the US, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Cosco and OOCL handled just over 17% of trans-Pacific imports to all US coasts during March 2025. CMA CGM came in second at 13.6%. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="17b008be-6389-4bcf-974c-dea36b662564"></dynamic-object></div>Of Ocean Alliance’s nine direct services to the US West Coast, four are operated by Cosco and OOCL. Those include the Bohai, Hibiscus Express and Yangtse services to Long Beach and the Dahlia service to Seattle. Cosco and OOCL also supply ships to the Manhattan Bridge and South Atlantic Express services to the US East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico Express service. Lars Jensen, CEO and partner of consultancy Vespucci Maritime, said in a LinkedIn post the fees that Cosco and OOCL face for a US port call, which he estimated could be as high as $8 million to $10 million, will likely prompt them to potentially reduce or even eliminate US services altogether. “COSCO and OOCL will be hit harder than other carriers,” Jensen said. “This is likely to cause a network adjustment in Ocean Alliance such that CMA CGM and Evergreen will be operating US-bound services as much as possible.” Ports America Chief Executive Matthew Leech said in another LinkedIn post that Cosco and OOCL “are more disadvantaged than other lines” by the USTR’s actions. But Leech said the Ocean Alliance has options to keep Cosco and OOCL ships busy. The two carriers could handle Ocean Alliance’s services to Europe while CMA CGM and Evergreen redeploy that capacity to US service networks. In media statements, CMA CGM said there are no plans for Cosco or OOCL to withdraw from Ocean Alliance, which lasts under its current agreement until 2032. Cosco’s statement Monday gave no indication of network changes but indicated that it would continue “offering a comprehensive range of dependable services.” Contact Michael Angell at <a href="mailto:michael.angell@spglobal.com">michael.angell@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Cosco Shipping says new fees that Chinese carriers and ships will be forced to pay for calling the US — possibly as high as $8 million to $10 million per voyage, according to one analyst — are unfair and will “distort” the ocean shipping market. That comes as other ocean carriers grapple with the impact of the fees on freight costs and how to redraw their networks to avoid them. Cosco Shipping Corporation, the container line’s parent, said in a statement Monday that the US Trade Representative (USTR) made a “discriminatory decision” in issuing new fees against China’s maritime industry . It said the charges unveiled Friday against China-based ocean carriers and Chinese-built ships in all other fleets will put global supply chains at risk of higher costs and result in less-efficient service . “We firmly oppose the [USTR’s] accusations and the subsequent measures,” Cosco said. “Such measures not only distort fair competition and impede the normal functioning of the global shipping industry, but also threaten its stable and sustainable development.” Barring their rescission, the fees are the USTR’s final actions against China’s carriers and container ships and will take effect in October. The fees will only be charged on the first US port of call on a vessel string, unlike the per-port fee schedule in the original USTR plan. The revised per-voyage fee will be charged a maximum of five times per year on each affected vessel. Confusion on net tonnage While less draconian than the initial USTR proposal , Cosco and its Hong Kong subsidiary OOCL face fees that are three times higher than what would be charged to all other ocean carriers. The USTR said the goal of the fees is to “disincentivize” shippers from using China’s ocean carriers. Starting this October, China’s ocean carriers will have to pay $50 per net ton of a vessel arriving at US ports. The fee goes up $30 each year on the anniversary of the USTR’s actions, topping out at $140 in 2028. 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. 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. Shippers and ocean carriers told the Journal of Commerce that they are reviewing the USTR actions to estimate how the fees will flow down to freight costs. But until there’s more clarity from the USTR, the fees are best guesses at this point. The fees are based on a ship’s “net tonnage,” but the USTR’s order does not include a definition of net tonnage. According to the US Coast Guard Marine Safety Center, net tonnage refers to a ship’s internal volume for cargo and is not measured in tons similar to a ship’s deadweight. The US signed a 1969 treaty that bound it to an international convention on measuring net tonnage that is included on a ship’s documentation. However, the Coast Guard noted that there are other ways to measure net tonnage that account for different types of vessels. Data from Sea-web, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global, shows the net tonnage of Chinese-built ships of 12,000-TEU to 15,000-TEU capacity can range anywhere from 60,000 to 85,000. Sea-web uses the 1969 international convention on net tonnage. An executive with an independent ocean carrier told the Journal of Commerce that its US services might typically include Chinese-built ships of 8,500-TEU capacity and net tonnage of about 64,000. That would result in a total estimated fee of about $1.2 million, which would average out to approximately $275 to $300 per container, assuming the ship is full at 4,000 containers. The $300 estimate “is in the range of what we are expecting,” the source said. “But we will reshuffle our vessels to limit exposure to USTR fees, so it’s likely to be less overall,” he added. In contrast, the 13,800-TEU Cosco Shipping Rose, which calls the US East Coast, has net tonnage of 84,940. That would put its port call fee at over $4 million, equating to about $600 per container assuming it is carrying over 6,000 containers. An executive with a European alliance carrier said multiple factors make a per-container rate difficult to estimate at this point, including the fact that ships are not always arriving in port full. Net tonnage generally refers to a ship’s internal volume, but container ships also carry freight on top of their hatches. The source said the USTR fees will result in costs “probably higher” than $300 per container. Ocean Alliance in focus Whatever fees other container lines face, Cosco and OOCL face triple the costs. That has some industry watchers looking for both carriers to shuffle US services offered under the Ocean Alliance, alongside partners CMA CGM and Evergreen Marine. Thanks to their role among China’s exporters, Cosco and OOCL have the leading market share in trans-Pacific services to the US, according to data from PIERS, a sister company of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Cosco and OOCL handled just over 17% of trans-Pacific imports to all US coasts during March 2025. CMA CGM came in second at 13.6%. Of Ocean Alliance’s nine direct services to the US West Coast, four are operated by Cosco and OOCL. Those include the Bohai, Hibiscus Express and Yangtse services to Long Beach and the Dahlia service to Seattle. Cosco and OOCL also supply ships to the Manhattan Bridge and South Atlantic Express services to the US East Coast and the Gulf of Mexico Express service. Lars Jensen, CEO and partner of consultancy Vespucci Maritime, said in a LinkedIn post the fees that Cosco and OOCL face for a US port call, which he estimated could be as high as $8 million to $10 million, will likely prompt them to potentially reduce or even eliminate US services altogether. “COSCO and OOCL will be hit harder than other carriers,” Jensen said. “This is likely to cause a network adjustment in Ocean Alliance such that CMA CGM and Evergreen will be operating US-bound services as much as possible.” Ports America Chief Executive Matthew Leech said in another LinkedIn post that Cosco and OOCL “are more disadvantaged than other lines” by the USTR’s actions. But Leech said the Ocean Alliance has options to keep Cosco and OOCL ships busy. The two carriers could handle Ocean Alliance’s services to Europe while CMA CGM and Evergreen redeploy that capacity to US service networks. In media statements, CMA CGM said there are no plans for Cosco or OOCL to withdraw from Ocean Alliance, which lasts under its current agreement until 2032. Cosco’s statement Monday gave no indication of network changes but indicated that it would continue “offering a comprehensive range of dependable services.” Contact Michael Angell at michael.angell@spglobal.com .

Trans-Pacific

North American ports

Container lines

Cosco slams US port fees as other carriers reckon with potential costs

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">US electronics imports are riding a wave of cyclical replacement, but tariffs could bring on an ebb tide.</div>

US electronics imports are riding a wave of cyclical replacement, but tariffs could bring on an ebb tide.

<div class="phx-topic">US electronics importers are still riding waves of replenishment after a boom in imports last year, but US tariffs are already affecting the costs consumers will pay. The Trump administration’s tariffs will challenge growth in the sector and likely raise costs for consumers despite exclusions from tariffs for several electronic products, including laptops and smartphones manufactured in China. The array of tariffs facing US trading partners has electronic manufacturers rethinking pricing and rollouts given how dependent they are on the Chinese market. The White House is considering a new tariff on products containing semiconductors, which are used in everything from automotive engines to computers and phones to the fancier range of espresso makers. The uncertainty created by proposed tariffs that remain undefined plays an even bigger part in deliberations about whether to push the “pause” button on imports or move ahead. The delayed launch of the Nintendo Switch 2 gaming console provides an early example. For a brief time, fans of Mario, Luigi and Donkey Kong thought they might have to pay more and wait longer for the new gaming console, a critical product for Kyoto, Japan-based Nintendo. The company initially scheduled pre-orders for the Switch 2 to begin on April 9 but delayed the order launch until April 24 due to uncertainty caused by the tariffs. On April 18, Nintendo said Switch 2 pricing would remain unchanged at $499.99 per unit, but prices for some accessories will be adjusted due to “changes in market conditions.” Those changes are the uncertainty of US tariffs. On April 2, President Donald Trump imposed a 24% reciprocal tariff on Japan, but that levy was suspended for 90 days on April 9. Japan, similar to most of the world, still faces a 10% baseline tariff and 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum and cars and automotive parts. Goods imported from China face a combined tariff of 145%. The tariffs threaten to short-circuit the market for containerized electronic imports, which shot up 9.4% in 2024 to reach nearly 1.8 million TEUs. That rebound after two years of declines topped the 1.7 million-TEU record set in 2021, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. The tariffs and proposed tariffs could derail forecasts for higher electronics sales in 2025 — if consumers decide the higher retail prices aren’t worth paying. “Consumers remain very price sensitive — something that will be further amplified by uncertainty surrounding potential trade and economic disruptions,” Paul Gagnon, vice president and technology industry advisor for research company Circana, said in a statement earlier this year. <h3>‘Refresh wave’ coming </h3>Circana, formerly IRI and the NPD Group, in January forecast an additional $1.8 billion in spending on electronics, a 1.6% year-over-year gain. Computers, portable audio devices and televisions were expected to contribute 70% of the increase. Much of the increase will be driven by a “refresh wave,” Circana said, as consumers replace older electronics with more powerful personal computers and larger screen TVs. Since January, consumers have become even more price sensitive. Surveys of consumer confidence and expectations have dropped significantly, alarming economists. That refresh wave could be shallower than expected. Even so, US consumers show no sign they’re sated with electronic gadgetry, especially the computers, tablets and smartphones embedded in daily life. New products and features such as artificial intelligence capabilities may convince them to spend more. But the upper limits of their discretionary spending remain to be tested — especially when a video game console is priced at $500. <h3>China, Vietnam make gains </h3>Despite tariffs and the threat of tariffs, China remains the largest single source of US electronics imports. China even increased its share of US electronics imports in 2024, pushing it up 0.5 percentage point to 45.47%, according to data from PIERS. That figure is down substantially from 56.2% in 2019, a sign of long-term decoupling from the US market. Vietnam’s share of the US electronics market also increased 0.5 percentage point to 15.77%; back in 2019, Vietnam had a 7.19% share. The next largest source of US electronics imports, Thailand, increased its market share last year to 6.65% from 6.2% in 2023, according to the PIERS data. South Korea and Malaysia, the next largest players, saw their market share shrink slightly to 5.49% and 3.34%, respectively. The rest of the world, including Japan, saw their US market share in electronics slip to 22.3% in 2024 after rising to 22.5% in 2023, losing some share to China and Vietnam. Those figures could change in 2025 as high tariffs on Chinese products that aren’t excluded discourage the shipment, as well as the purchase, of cheaper electronics. Some of these goods, however, may be cheap enough that even tariffs won’t deter their sale. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>.</div>

US electronics importers are still riding waves of replenishment after a boom in imports last year, but US tariffs are already affecting the costs consumers will pay. The Trump administration’s tariffs will challenge growth in the sector and likely raise costs for consumers despite exclusions from tariffs for several electronic products, including laptops and smartphones manufactured in China. The array of tariffs facing US trading partners has electronic manufacturers rethinking pricing and rollouts given how dependent they are on the Chinese market. The White House is considering a new tariff on products containing semiconductors, which are used in everything from automotive engines to computers and phones to the fancier range of espresso makers. The uncertainty created by proposed tariffs that remain undefined plays an even bigger part in deliberations about whether to push the “pause” button on imports or move ahead. The delayed launch of the Nintendo Switch 2 gaming console provides an early example. For a brief time, fans of Mario, Luigi and Donkey Kong thought they might have to pay more and wait longer for the new gaming console, a critical product for Kyoto, Japan-based Nintendo. The company initially scheduled pre-orders for the Switch 2 to begin on April 9 but delayed the order launch until April 24 due to uncertainty caused by the tariffs. On April 18, Nintendo said Switch 2 pricing would remain unchanged at $499.99 per unit, but prices for some accessories will be adjusted due to “changes in market conditions.” Those changes are the uncertainty of US tariffs. On April 2, President Donald Trump imposed a 24% reciprocal tariff on Japan, but that levy was suspended for 90 days on April 9. Japan, similar to most of the world, still faces a 10% baseline tariff and 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum and cars and automotive parts. Goods imported from China face a combined tariff of 145%. The tariffs threaten to short-circuit the market for containerized electronic imports, which shot up 9.4% in 2024 to reach nearly 1.8 million TEUs. That rebound after two years of declines topped the 1.7 million-TEU record set in 2021, according to PIERS, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. The tariffs and proposed tariffs could derail forecasts for higher electronics sales in 2025 — if consumers decide the higher retail prices aren’t worth paying. “Consumers remain very price sensitive — something that will be further amplified by uncertainty surrounding potential trade and economic disruptions,” Paul Gagnon, vice president and technology industry advisor for research company Circana, said in a statement earlier this year. ‘Refresh wave’ coming Circana, formerly IRI and the NPD Group, in January forecast an additional $1.8 billion in spending on electronics, a 1.6% year-over-year gain. Computers, portable audio devices and televisions were expected to contribute 70% of the increase. Much of the increase will be driven by a “refresh wave,” Circana said, as consumers replace older electronics with more powerful personal computers and larger screen TVs. Since January, consumers have become even more price sensitive. Surveys of consumer confidence and expectations have dropped significantly, alarming economists. That refresh wave could be shallower than expected. Even so, US consumers show no sign they’re sated with electronic gadgetry, especially the computers, tablets and smartphones embedded in daily life. New products and features such as artificial intelligence capabilities may convince them to spend more. But the upper limits of their discretionary spending remain to be tested — especially when a video game console is priced at $500. China, Vietnam make gains Despite tariffs and the threat of tariffs, China remains the largest single source of US electronics imports. China even increased its share of US electronics imports in 2024, pushing it up 0.5 percentage point to 45.47%, according to data from PIERS. That figure is down substantially from 56.2% in 2019, a sign of long-term decoupling from the US market. Vietnam’s share of the US electronics market also increased 0.5 percentage point to 15.77%; back in 2019, Vietnam had a 7.19% share. The next largest source of US electronics imports, Thailand, increased its market share last year to 6.65% from 6.2% in 2023, according to the PIERS data. South Korea and Malaysia, the next largest players, saw their market share shrink slightly to 5.49% and 3.34%, respectively. The rest of the world, including Japan, saw their US market share in electronics slip to 22.3% in 2024 after rising to 22.5% in 2023, losing some share to China and Vietnam. Those figures could change in 2025 as high tariffs on Chinese products that aren’t excluded discourage the shipment, as well as the purchase, of cheaper electronics. Some of these goods, however, may be cheap enough that even tariffs won’t deter their sale. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com .

Maritime

Surface

Air Cargo

Supply chain

US tariffs threaten a ‘refresh wave’ of US electronics sales, imports

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Qatar, IAG and MASkargo plan to get their trilateral partnership off the ground as soon as regulatory approval is secured.</div>

Qatar, IAG and MASkargo plan to get their trilateral partnership off the ground as soon as regulatory approval is secured.

<div class="phx-topic">Three of the world’s largest air freight airlines have formed a global cargo joint venture designed to dramatically expand networks in key markets and improve customer service levels and transit times. While few details were made available, Qatar Airways Cargo (Qatar Cargo), IAG Cargo and Malaysian Airlines’ air freight division MASkargo announced Tuesday their intention to launch a trilateral partnership that is planned to take off “in the near future,” subject to regulatory approval. “This joint business not only unlocks choice and opportunities for our customers but also enhances connectivity for the businesses and industries they serve, further strengthening the role air cargo plays in facilitating global trade,” David Shepherd, CEO of IAG Cargo, said in a joint statement. IAG is the holding company for British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus. Should the strategic cooperation manage to clear regulatory hurdles, it will create an enormous global network that will offer shippers more routing options, faster transit times and stronger connectivity across key markets. MASkargo has more than 100 destinations and manages cargo terminals at 11 Malaysian airports, serving over 40 carriers. Qatar Airways Cargo has 60 freighter and 170 passenger destinations, while the airlines under IAG Cargo operate out of four European hubs to 250 destinations across six continents. IAG Cargo and Qatar Cargo will gain access to the extensive Southeast Asian and Australasian network of MASkargo, while the Malaysian Airlines carrier will expand its reach into the Middle East, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and European markets. “Today marks a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to redefine the global air cargo landscape,” Mark Drusch, chief officer for cargo at Qatar Airways, said in the statement. MASkargo CEO Mark Jason Thomas had a similar view. “This strategic collaboration marks a pivotal moment for MASkargo and the air cargo industry,” he noted. Qatar Cargo volume grew 12.9% in 2024 while IAG Cargo volume increased 12.6% year over year. No volume figures are available for MASkargo, but the carrier has available air cargo capacity of more than 1 million tons. In parallel with the joint venture, the three carriers are working together to develop industry-leading harmonized safety and security standards for customers, according to the joint statement. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Three of the world’s largest air freight airlines have formed a global cargo joint venture designed to dramatically expand networks in key markets and improve customer service levels and transit times. While few details were made available, Qatar Airways Cargo (Qatar Cargo), IAG Cargo and Malaysian Airlines’ air freight division MASkargo announced Tuesday their intention to launch a trilateral partnership that is planned to take off “in the near future,” subject to regulatory approval. “This joint business not only unlocks choice and opportunities for our customers but also enhances connectivity for the businesses and industries they serve, further strengthening the role air cargo plays in facilitating global trade,” David Shepherd, CEO of IAG Cargo, said in a joint statement. IAG is the holding company for British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus. Should the strategic cooperation manage to clear regulatory hurdles, it will create an enormous global network that will offer shippers more routing options, faster transit times and stronger connectivity across key markets. MASkargo has more than 100 destinations and manages cargo terminals at 11 Malaysian airports, serving over 40 carriers. Qatar Airways Cargo has 60 freighter and 170 passenger destinations, while the airlines under IAG Cargo operate out of four European hubs to 250 destinations across six continents. IAG Cargo and Qatar Cargo will gain access to the extensive Southeast Asian and Australasian network of MASkargo, while the Malaysian Airlines carrier will expand its reach into the Middle East, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries and European markets. “Today marks a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to redefine the global air cargo landscape,” Mark Drusch, chief officer for cargo at Qatar Airways, said in the statement. MASkargo CEO Mark Jason Thomas had a similar view. “This strategic collaboration marks a pivotal moment for MASkargo and the air cargo industry,” he noted. Qatar Cargo volume grew 12.9% in 2024 while IAG Cargo volume increased 12.6% year over year. No volume figures are available for MASkargo, but the carrier has available air cargo capacity of more than 1 million tons. In parallel with the joint venture, the three carriers are working together to develop industry-leading harmonized safety and security standards for customers, according to the joint statement. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Air Cargo Carriers News

Three air freight majors form global alliance to expand network reach

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">But executives at both northern range hubs highlighted the extreme volatility of the first three months and the US tariff-driven uncertainty that lies ahead.</div>

But executives at both northern range hubs highlighted the extreme volatility of the first three months and the US tariff-driven uncertainty that lies ahead.

<div class="phx-topic">Antwerp-Bruges overtook Rotterdam in the first quarter to assume the mantle of Europe’s busiest container port, handling 3.43 million TEUs against its Dutch rival’s 3.36 million TEUs. While Rotterdam’s container volume in the first three months rose 2.2% year over year, throughput at the Belgian hub was up 4.5%, increasing Antwerp-Bruges’ market share in the Hamburg-Le Havre range by 0.6 percentage point to 30.5%. “These quarterly figures emphasize how valuable the complementarity between Antwerp and Zeebrugge actually is,” Dirk de Fauw, mayor of Bruges and vice president of the Port of Antwerp-Bruges board of directors, said in a statement issued by the port Tuesday. The Belgian ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge merged in 2022 to form the Port of Antwerp-Bruges. “The combination of scale and specialization is proving itself time and again, especially in a turbulent international environment,” de Fauw noted. Executives at Antwerp-Bruges and Rotterdam highlighted in separate statements the extreme global disruption in container markets during the first quarter and the US tariff-driven uncertainty that lies ahead. “The first three months of this year were characterized by a high degree of volatility in world trade as a result of threatened import duties in the United States and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East,” Boudewijn Siemons, CEO of the Port of Rotterdam Authority, said in a statement. “This volatility has led to uncertainty among companies in the areas of trade and investment,” he added. “We see this reflected in throughput volumes and the willingness to invest.” <h3>Impact of US tariffs </h3>While Antwerp-Bruges said the immediate impact of the on-again, off-again US tariffs remained limited for now, it warned that further developments in trade tariffs would impact the logistics chain in the coming months. But how significant that impact could be was difficult to predict, said Jacques Vandermeiren, the port’s CEO. “We are in particularly uncertain times,” he noted in the first-quarter results statement, adding that stability was critical, both for the port’s customers and for the broader economy. “At the same time, the protectionist measures taken by the US make it clear that Europe needs to make a stronger commitment to robust economic policies in order to strengthen our industry and anchor its strategic position,” Vandermeiren noted. On March 12, the US applied a 25% tariff to iron, steel, aluminum and derived products from around the world. On April 3, that was extended to include cars and car parts, also at 25%, with an additional 20% increase on goods originating from the European Union. Then on April 9, the Trump administration announced a 90-day temporary pause for countries open to negotiations, leaving the 10% across-the-board baseline tariff on Europe in place during the negotiating period. The European Union has also suspended its reciprocal tariffs on US exports such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, bourbon whiskey and boats. A second phase of tariffs due to take effect April 15 has also been suspended for the 90-day period. Europe’s hub ports are <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/early-signs-of-rising-tariff-driven-demand-emerge-on-the-trans-atlantic-5986678">watching the trans-Atlantic trade for signs of frontloading</a> as shippers take advantage of the 90-day window to advance orders, but so far, they have not seen any significant increase in demand. Rotterdam’s trans-Atlantic volume plunged 23.1% in the first quarter compared with the same period last year. However, the port said this was not tariff-related but rather a result of two shipping services being shifted to other ports because of limited capacity at terminals that experienced significant congestion for much of the quarter. In terms of total tonnage, Rotterdam’s first-quarter throughput declined 1.1% year over year, driven by an 8.1% decrease in the export of full containers, according to the port statement. Export containers are heavier, which means the average weight per container is lower. Of immediate concern to Europe, however, are Chinese imports. The European Commission is <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/europe-on-alert-to-track-any-wave-of-diverted-chinese-imports-5986038">closely monitoring containerized imports from China</a> amid growing fears that the high US tariffs will force a redirection of trans-Pacific trade flows and flood Europe with Chinese goods. <h3>Undermining industrial competitiveness </h3>Antwerp-Bruges highlighted the deeper challenges facing the European economy, with the industrial sector struggling with structural problems that are “seriously undermining its competitiveness.” These included high energy and production costs, global overcapacity and increasing competition from cheap imports from Asia and elsewhere that were putting pressure on the sector. On top of the structural issues, Antwerp-Bruges highlighted complex regulations, slow permitting processes and high labor costs that were interfering with the willingness of businesses to invest. “Port of Antwerp-Bruges and Port of Rotterdam are therefore pleading for a rapid implementation of the Clean Industrial Deal in the form of concrete measures and sufficient budgetary support to restore resilience and future prospects for European industry,” the Antwerp-Bruges statement noted. The Clean Industrial Deal unveiled in February is a measure through which the European Commission intends to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry. Contact Greg Knowler at <a href="mailto:greg.knowler@spglobal.com">greg.knowler@spglobal.com</a>. </div>

Antwerp-Bruges overtook Rotterdam in the first quarter to assume the mantle of Europe’s busiest container port, handling 3.43 million TEUs against its Dutch rival’s 3.36 million TEUs. While Rotterdam’s container volume in the first three months rose 2.2% year over year, throughput at the Belgian hub was up 4.5%, increasing Antwerp-Bruges’ market share in the Hamburg-Le Havre range by 0.6 percentage point to 30.5%. “These quarterly figures emphasize how valuable the complementarity between Antwerp and Zeebrugge actually is,” Dirk de Fauw, mayor of Bruges and vice president of the Port of Antwerp-Bruges board of directors, said in a statement issued by the port Tuesday. The Belgian ports of Antwerp and Zeebrugge merged in 2022 to form the Port of Antwerp-Bruges. “The combination of scale and specialization is proving itself time and again, especially in a turbulent international environment,” de Fauw noted. Executives at Antwerp-Bruges and Rotterdam highlighted in separate statements the extreme global disruption in container markets during the first quarter and the US tariff-driven uncertainty that lies ahead. “The first three months of this year were characterized by a high degree of volatility in world trade as a result of threatened import duties in the United States and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East,” Boudewijn Siemons, CEO of the Port of Rotterdam Authority, said in a statement. “This volatility has led to uncertainty among companies in the areas of trade and investment,” he added. “We see this reflected in throughput volumes and the willingness to invest.” Impact of US tariffs While Antwerp-Bruges said the immediate impact of the on-again, off-again US tariffs remained limited for now, it warned that further developments in trade tariffs would impact the logistics chain in the coming months. But how significant that impact could be was difficult to predict, said Jacques Vandermeiren, the port’s CEO. “We are in particularly uncertain times,” he noted in the first-quarter results statement, adding that stability was critical, both for the port’s customers and for the broader economy. “At the same time, the protectionist measures taken by the US make it clear that Europe needs to make a stronger commitment to robust economic policies in order to strengthen our industry and anchor its strategic position,” Vandermeiren noted. On March 12, the US applied a 25% tariff to iron, steel, aluminum and derived products from around the world. On April 3, that was extended to include cars and car parts, also at 25%, with an additional 20% increase on goods originating from the European Union. Then on April 9, the Trump administration announced a 90-day temporary pause for countries open to negotiations, leaving the 10% across-the-board baseline tariff on Europe in place during the negotiating period. The European Union has also suspended its reciprocal tariffs on US exports such as Harley-Davidson motorcycles, bourbon whiskey and boats. A second phase of tariffs due to take effect April 15 has also been suspended for the 90-day period. Europe’s hub ports are watching the trans-Atlantic trade for signs of frontloading as shippers take advantage of the 90-day window to advance orders, but so far, they have not seen any significant increase in demand. Rotterdam’s trans-Atlantic volume plunged 23.1% in the first quarter compared with the same period last year. However, the port said this was not tariff-related but rather a result of two shipping services being shifted to other ports because of limited capacity at terminals that experienced significant congestion for much of the quarter. In terms of total tonnage, Rotterdam’s first-quarter throughput declined 1.1% year over year, driven by an 8.1% decrease in the export of full containers, according to the port statement. Export containers are heavier, which means the average weight per container is lower. Of immediate concern to Europe, however, are Chinese imports. The European Commission is closely monitoring containerized imports from China amid growing fears that the high US tariffs will force a redirection of trans-Pacific trade flows and flood Europe with Chinese goods. Undermining industrial competitiveness Antwerp-Bruges highlighted the deeper challenges facing the European economy, with the industrial sector struggling with structural problems that are “seriously undermining its competitiveness.” These included high energy and production costs, global overcapacity and increasing competition from cheap imports from Asia and elsewhere that were putting pressure on the sector. On top of the structural issues, Antwerp-Bruges highlighted complex regulations, slow permitting processes and high labor costs that were interfering with the willingness of businesses to invest. “Port of Antwerp-Bruges and Port of Rotterdam are therefore pleading for a rapid implementation of the Clean Industrial Deal in the form of concrete measures and sufficient budgetary support to restore resilience and future prospects for European industry,” the Antwerp-Bruges statement noted. The Clean Industrial Deal unveiled in February is a measure through which the European Commission intends to strengthen the competitiveness of European industry. Contact Greg Knowler at greg.knowler@spglobal.com .

Trans-Atlantic

Asia-Europe

International ports

Antwerp-Bruges passes Rotterdam to become Europe’s busiest box port

<div class="phx-topic abstract-wrapper">Disruption caused by trade wars will reach deep into global supply chains, depressing an already uncertain outlook for the US freight economy. </div>

Disruption caused by trade wars will reach deep into global supply chains, depressing an already uncertain outlook for the US freight economy.

<div class="phx-topic">The tailwinds that brought a strong increase in US imports and certain exports last year have turned to cold, hard headwinds this year as disruptions caused by the Trump administration’s tariffs take root and multiply. The shock waves from those tariffs are rippling from ports in Asia and Europe through freight docks deep in industrial America. The latest shock came from the US Trade Representative (USTR), which said April 18 it will <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/scaled-back-ustr-port-tariff-to-hit-chinese-carriers-hardest-5987549">charge entrance fees for China-based ocean carriers</a> and lines operating Chinese-built ships calling at US ports based on cargo capacity or container volume. Given the chaotic rollout of President Donald Trump’s trade policies, the outlook for the US freight economy in the second half of 2025 isn’t just cloudy — it’s reached a point of uncertainty that is crippling shippers’ ability to plan. US shippers “are waiting for the dust to settle to determine how tariffs might influence and change their short- and long-term business strategies,” Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said during an earnings call April 15. S&amp;P Global, the parent company of the Journal of Commerce, in April pulled down its US GDP growth forecasts for 2025 and 2026 from 1.9% in both years to 1.3% and 1.5%, respectively, thanks in part to expectations that tariffs will result in higher inflation. Although the risk of a recession in the US has diminished, US policy volatility and related economic uncertainties are likely to linger into the year, S&amp;P Global said. On land, the so-called freight recession that began in 2022, sending trucking and intermodal rates tumbling by double-digit percentages, is entering its fourth consecutive year. Shippers will maintain pricing power in the truckload and intermodal rail segments in 2025, but they’re also going to make, ship and sell less. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="9fd84e22-d76c-4e34-8c52-c038bd25ad91"></dynamic-object></div>Despite an uptick in truckload spot rates early this year, led by flatbed spot rates, truckload pricing is still bouncing along a bottom it reached in 2023. Less-than-truckload (LTL) pricing has been elevated since the collapse of Yellow in 2023, but volumes remain essentially flat aside from some tariff-driven frontloading. The question isn’t whether trucking volumes will decline in the second quarter or second half of 2025, but by how much. That may trigger a broader loss of truck capacity. <h3>Blanking and canceling </h3>On the seas, the Trump administration’s multi-front trade war has already led to a drop in shipments, compounding the disruption caused by attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, where the US is escalating attacks on Houthis in Yemen. Ocean freight rates have fallen steeply in the first four months of 2025. Average spot pricing from Asia to the US West Coast of $2,050 per FEU in the week of April 18 was down 61% from the beginning of the year and 74.8% from its most recent peak in July 2024, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&amp;P Global. Asia-US East Coast spot rates have sunk 53.7% since Jan. 1 and 69.4% from last summer to $3,100 per FEU. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="cbb65e03-1d9b-43c6-97ee-0afa0e7dfc1d"></dynamic-object></div>A slew of booking cancellations by US importers is leading ocean carriers to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/trans-pacific-blank-sailings-set-to-rise-after-china-bookings-drop-sharply-5984166">blank more voyages</a> in the eastbound trans-Pacific. Some ships are leaving China half-empty. The scale-back in US-bound imports from China is affecting the entire ocean carrier industry. “People are canceling and putting cargo [from] China on pause,” a source at a trans-Pacific container line who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce in April. The broad pause in bookings and orders extends beyond China to other sourcing origins. Amazon, for example, has canceled orders of goods ranging from beach chairs and scooters to air conditioners from Vietnam and Thailand, as well as China, according to a report from Bloomberg. Retailer Five Below paused orders from China in April as those tariffs escalated, CFO Kristy Chipman told analysts during a March 19 call. “The breadth and magnitude of the tariffs are significant given that approximately 60% of our total cost of goods are imported from China, either directly or through our domestic vendors,” Chipman said. Trans-Pacific air cargo traffic, meanwhile, is expected to increase through May 2 as importers rush to beat the end of the exclusion from tariffs for low-value imports. After that final spurt of frontloading, tariffs and the loss of the de minimis exemption for shipments from China and Hong Kong are expected to <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/prepare-for-period-of-panic-in-trans-pacific-air-cargo-market-tiaca-5978829">drag on demand</a>. Limited blank sailings have been announced on the trans-Atlantic trade in the coming weeks, with just 7,124 TEUs from North Europe to the US East and Gulf coasts <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/early-signs-of-rising-tariff-driven-demand-emerge-on-the-trans-atlantic-5986678">scheduled to be withdrawn</a> in May, according to maritime data provider eeSea. “It seems as if carriers are pushing up capacity to cater for whatever frontloading may be needed by European exporters,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. <h3>A bubble about to burst </h3>In 2024, containerized US imports jumped 15.3% to 27.7 million TEUs, while exports rose 0.9% to 11.3 million TEUs, according to PIERS, also part of S&amp;P Global. Manufactured goods, machinery and mechanical products and minerals rode atop the wave of imports, spiking 17.6%, 14.8% and 11.4%, respectively. Goods were still pouring into the US in the first three months of 2025, with container imports rising 9.2% year over year, according to PIERS, but retailers say the import wave is collapsing as the race to beat the US tariffs ends. The Global Port Tracker report, produced by the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates, forecasts imports to plunge 20.5% in May, 26.6% in June, 27% in July and 26.7% in August. “At present, we expect to see imports begin to decline by May and that they will drop dramatically during the remainder of the year,” Hackett Associates Founder Ben Hackett said in the April Global Port Tracker report. The NRF and Hackett project inbound container shipments will fall 20% in the second half from the year-ago period, which would result in a full-year decline of 15% or more, approximately equal to last year’s gain. Exporters are feeling the effects of tariffs, too, especially those shipping <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/uncertain-trade-environment-especially-fraught-for-us-ag-shippers-5987561">US agricultural and forestry products</a>. China, the largest US market for those products, levied a 125% tariff on them in retaliation for new US tariffs. Bookings for US exports to China for the week of April 15 <a href="https://www.joc.com/article/us-exporters-see-rise-in-canceled-orders-from-chinese-buyers-amid-trade-war-5986165">were down 5.4%</a> from the prior week at 17,220 TEUs, according to maritime visibility provider Vizion and data and analytics company Dun &amp; Bradstreet. “In [the] short term, I think we’re going to see a lot of agriculture exporting shift [from China] to other countries,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC), said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. A drop in the value of the US dollar — down about 5% against other major world currencies after April’s tariff announcements — could help exporters sell goods overseas, but retaliatory tariffs and backlash among foreign consumers will likely dampen any currency gains. Such backlash has already occurred in Canada, where retailers have withdrawn American-made items from whiskey to diapers from their shelves. <h3>Manufacturing losing momentum </h3>Fewer US imports mean fewer intermodal containers moving inland to Chicago or Dallas and fewer truckload and LTL shipments. But a continued decline in US factory output will have an even greater impact on demand for trucking and rail services. Almost 60% of US truck tonnage is tied to industrial output, according to US Census Bureau data. North America manufacturing output fell at one of the steepest rates seen in the past two years in March, according to S&amp;P Global, with broad-based production losses in the US, Canada and Mexico. The US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) from S&amp;P Global dropped to 50.2 in March from 52.7 in February and 51.2 in January. <div class="wrapper-narrow"><dynamic-object type="jocchartid" resource-id="e4bcb827-f97b-43d7-a4df-83a0b6ac9b48"></dynamic-object></div>Optimism surrounding the Trump administration and the need to “front run” tariffs buoyed manufacturers in the first two months of the year, but “cracks are now starting to appear,” S&amp;P Global said in its PMI release in April. The longer trade disputes last, the more US manufacturers will have difficulty finding specific components, including some that are critical to production, said Michael Regan, chief relationship officer at logistics company and shipper consultant TranzAct Technologies, citing Chinese-made magnets used in automotive transmissions as an example. “These are ‘dirty magnets’ produced from rare earth metals, and China is limiting their export,” Regan told the Journal of Commerce in mid-April. “A company I know has enough inventory to last only through July.” <h3>Resilient, but worried </h3>US consumer spending has been relatively steadfast so far this year, supported by continued wage increases and low unemployment. US retail sales grew 1.4% month over month in March, the biggest monthly increase since January 2023. Excluding sales of cars and trucks and automotive parts, retail sales only rose 0.5% from February, according to US Census Bureau data. But those results fly in the face of consumer sentiment. The University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment dropped 11% sequentially in April, its fourth consecutive monthly decline. The Conference Board’s monthly index of consumer expectations dropped 9.6 points in March to 65.2, its lowest level in 12 years and far below the threshold of 80 that usually signals a recession ahead. Unlike in 2024, the consumer “is not feeling great,” NRF Chief Economist Jack Kleinhenz said in a statement in mid-April, but the NRF still expects US retail sales to rise this year with or without tariffs. The retailers’ association forecasts retail sales will grow between 2.7% and 3.7% year over year to between $5.42 trillion and $5.48 trillion. What’s more, there’s no expectation the disputes will end in the near future, and even if they do, damage has already been done that will take time to repair. The Trump administration’s goals, whether achievable or not, are part of a long-term strategy that is likely to survive weekly or even daily policy flips. As long as tariff uncertainty and trade wars linger, however, it will be more difficult to find a catalyst that will increase freight demand in the US. That’s pushing hopes for a freight recovery farther into 2026. Contact William B. Cassidy at <a href="mailto:bill.cassidy@spglobal.com">bill.cassidy@spglobal.com</a>. Journal of Commerce editors Ari Ashe, Greg Knowler, Bill Mongelluzzo and Laura Robb contributed to this report, along with Research Analyst Cathy Morrow Roberson. </div>

The tailwinds that brought a strong increase in US imports and certain exports last year have turned to cold, hard headwinds this year as disruptions caused by the Trump administration’s tariffs take root and multiply. The shock waves from those tariffs are rippling from ports in Asia and Europe through freight docks deep in industrial America. The latest shock came from the US Trade Representative (USTR), which said April 18 it will charge entrance fees for China-based ocean carriers and lines operating Chinese-built ships calling at US ports based on cargo capacity or container volume. Given the chaotic rollout of President Donald Trump’s trade policies, the outlook for the US freight economy in the second half of 2025 isn’t just cloudy — it’s reached a point of uncertainty that is crippling shippers’ ability to plan. US shippers “are waiting for the dust to settle to determine how tariffs might influence and change their short- and long-term business strategies,” Spencer Frazier, executive vice president of sales at J.B. Hunt Transport Services, said during an earnings call April 15. S&P Global, the parent company of the Journal of Commerce, in April pulled down its US GDP growth forecasts for 2025 and 2026 from 1.9% in both years to 1.3% and 1.5%, respectively, thanks in part to expectations that tariffs will result in higher inflation. Although the risk of a recession in the US has diminished, US policy volatility and related economic uncertainties are likely to linger into the year, S&P Global said. On land, the so-called freight recession that began in 2022, sending trucking and intermodal rates tumbling by double-digit percentages, is entering its fourth consecutive year. Shippers will maintain pricing power in the truckload and intermodal rail segments in 2025, but they’re also going to make, ship and sell less. Despite an uptick in truckload spot rates early this year, led by flatbed spot rates, truckload pricing is still bouncing along a bottom it reached in 2023. Less-than-truckload (LTL) pricing has been elevated since the collapse of Yellow in 2023, but volumes remain essentially flat aside from some tariff-driven frontloading. The question isn’t whether trucking volumes will decline in the second quarter or second half of 2025, but by how much. That may trigger a broader loss of truck capacity. Blanking and canceling On the seas, the Trump administration’s multi-front trade war has already led to a drop in shipments, compounding the disruption caused by attacks on shipping in the Red Sea, where the US is escalating attacks on Houthis in Yemen. Ocean freight rates have fallen steeply in the first four months of 2025. Average spot pricing from Asia to the US West Coast of $2,050 per FEU in the week of April 18 was down 61% from the beginning of the year and 74.8% from its most recent peak in July 2024, according to Platts, a sister product of the Journal of Commerce within S&P Global. Asia-US East Coast spot rates have sunk 53.7% since Jan. 1 and 69.4% from last summer to $3,100 per FEU. A slew of booking cancellations by US importers is leading ocean carriers to blank more voyages in the eastbound trans-Pacific. Some ships are leaving China half-empty. The scale-back in US-bound imports from China is affecting the entire ocean carrier industry. “People are canceling and putting cargo [from] China on pause,” a source at a trans-Pacific container line who asked not to be identified told the Journal of Commerce in April. The broad pause in bookings and orders extends beyond China to other sourcing origins. Amazon, for example, has canceled orders of goods ranging from beach chairs and scooters to air conditioners from Vietnam and Thailand, as well as China, according to a report from Bloomberg. Retailer Five Below paused orders from China in April as those tariffs escalated, CFO Kristy Chipman told analysts during a March 19 call. “The breadth and magnitude of the tariffs are significant given that approximately 60% of our total cost of goods are imported from China, either directly or through our domestic vendors,” Chipman said. Trans-Pacific air cargo traffic, meanwhile, is expected to increase through May 2 as importers rush to beat the end of the exclusion from tariffs for low-value imports. After that final spurt of frontloading, tariffs and the loss of the de minimis exemption for shipments from China and Hong Kong are expected to drag on demand . Limited blank sailings have been announced on the trans-Atlantic trade in the coming weeks, with just 7,124 TEUs from North Europe to the US East and Gulf coasts scheduled to be withdrawn in May, according to maritime data provider eeSea. “It seems as if carriers are pushing up capacity to cater for whatever frontloading may be needed by European exporters,” said Peter Sand, chief analyst at rate benchmarking platform Xeneta. A bubble about to burst In 2024, containerized US imports jumped 15.3% to 27.7 million TEUs, while exports rose 0.9% to 11.3 million TEUs, according to PIERS, also part of S&P Global. Manufactured goods, machinery and mechanical products and minerals rode atop the wave of imports, spiking 17.6%, 14.8% and 11.4%, respectively. Goods were still pouring into the US in the first three months of 2025, with container imports rising 9.2% year over year, according to PIERS, but retailers say the import wave is collapsing as the race to beat the US tariffs ends. The Global Port Tracker report, produced by the National Retail Federation (NRF) and Hackett Associates, forecasts imports to plunge 20.5% in May, 26.6% in June, 27% in July and 26.7% in August. “At present, we expect to see imports begin to decline by May and that they will drop dramatically during the remainder of the year,” Hackett Associates Founder Ben Hackett said in the April Global Port Tracker report. The NRF and Hackett project inbound container shipments will fall 20% in the second half from the year-ago period, which would result in a full-year decline of 15% or more, approximately equal to last year’s gain. Exporters are feeling the effects of tariffs, too, especially those shipping US agricultural and forestry products . China, the largest US market for those products, levied a 125% tariff on them in retaliation for new US tariffs. Bookings for US exports to China for the week of April 15 were down 5.4% from the prior week at 17,220 TEUs, according to maritime visibility provider Vizion and data and analytics company Dun & Bradstreet. “In [the] short term, I think we’re going to see a lot of agriculture exporting shift [from China] to other countries,” Peter Friedmann, executive director of the Agriculture Transportation Coalition (AgTC), said in an interview with the Journal of Commerce. A drop in the value of the US dollar — down about 5% against other major world currencies after April’s tariff announcements — could help exporters sell goods overseas, but retaliatory tariffs and backlash among foreign consumers will likely dampen any currency gains. Such backlash has already occurred in Canada, where retailers have withdrawn American-made items from whiskey to diapers from their shelves. Manufacturing losing momentum Fewer US imports mean fewer intermodal containers moving inland to Chicago or Dallas and fewer truckload and LTL shipments. But a continued decline in US factory output will have an even greater impact on demand for trucking and rail services. Almost 60% of US truck tonnage is tied to industrial output, according to US Census Bureau data. North America manufacturing output fell at one of the steepest rates seen in the past two years in March, according to S&P Global, with broad-based production losses in the US, Canada and Mexico. The US Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) from S&P Global dropped to 50.2 in March from 52.7 in February and 51.2 in January. Optimism surrounding the Trump administration and the need to “front run” tariffs buoyed manufacturers in the first two months of the year, but “cracks are now starting to appear,” S&P Global said in its PMI release in April. The longer trade disputes last, the more US manufacturers will have difficulty finding specific components, including some that are critical to production, said Michael Regan, chief relationship officer at logistics company and shipper consultant TranzAct Technologies, citing Chinese-made magnets used in automotive transmissions as an example. “These are ‘dirty magnets’ produced from rare earth metals, and China is limiting their export,” Regan told the Journal of Commerce in mid-April. “A company I know has enough inventory to last only through July.” Resilient, but worried US consumer spending has been relatively steadfast so far this year, supported by continued wage increases and low unemployment. US retail sales grew 1.4% month over month in March, the biggest monthly increase since January 2023. Excluding sales of cars and trucks and automotive parts, retail sales only rose 0.5% from February, according to US Census Bureau data. But those results fly in the face of consumer sentiment. The University of Michigan Index of Consumer Sentiment dropped 11% sequentially in April, its fourth consecutive monthly decline. The Conference Board’s monthly index of consumer expectations dropped 9.6 points in March to 65.2, its lowest level in 12 years and far below the threshold of 80 that usually signals a recession ahead. Unlike in 2024, the consumer “is not feeling great,” NRF Chief Economist Jack Kleinhenz said in a statement in mid-April, but the NRF still expects US retail sales to rise this year with or without tariffs. The retailers’ association forecasts retail sales will grow between 2.7% and 3.7% year over year to between $5.42 trillion and $5.48 trillion. What’s more, there’s no expectation the disputes will end in the near future, and even if they do, damage has already been done that will take time to repair. The Trump administration’s goals, whether achievable or not, are part of a long-term strategy that is likely to survive weekly or even daily policy flips. As long as tariff uncertainty and trade wars linger, however, it will be more difficult to find a catalyst that will increase freight demand in the US. That’s pushing hopes for a freight recovery farther into 2026. Contact William B. Cassidy at bill.cassidy@spglobal.com . Journal of Commerce editors Ari Ashe, Greg Knowler, Bill Mongelluzzo and Laura Robb contributed to this report, along with Research Analyst Cathy Morrow Roberson.

Tariff-related disruption spreading as US shippers ‘pause’ plans

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

Upgrade Subscription - Gold Trials

Become a Gold Subscriber and Save!

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

Group Subscriptions - Wide Box

Get into a group subscription today

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

Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE AND SAVE

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

Upgrade Subscription - Wide Box

UPGRADE AND SAVE

Access Journal of Commerce content for 30 days

Free Trial - Wide Box

START A FREE TRIAL TODAY

Choose a subscription plan that works best for you!

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Wide Box

SUBSCRIBE TODAY

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046.jpg

Shippers save money, time with automated transportation bidding tools

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

SMC3rates_shutterstock_5247046 (1).jpg

Filling the Supply Chain Education Gap with LTL Education Courses

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

Subscribe Now - Anonymous - Offer Box

Subscribe Today

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

Free Trial - Offer Box

Free Trial

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


Subscribe Now - Free Trials - Offer Box

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

Group Subscriptions - Offer Box

Group Subscriptions

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

Upgrade Subscription

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

Upgrade Subscription - Offer Box

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

Inland Conference - Rectangle Box

Attend Inland25

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

ISI Report - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Savings Index

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

Breakbulk Report - Rectangle Box

Breakbulk Quarterly

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

Gateway - Rectangle Box

Gateway

Customers scoring their intermodal partners to identify the best service providers

Intermodal Service Scorecard - Rectangle Box

Intermodal Service Scorecard

A premium access outlook critical to shippers and transportation providers

QI Report - Rectangle Box

Quarterly Intelligence

The latest port news from the Journal of Commerce spans the globe from North Carolina and Florida to Shanghai and Singapore. Port news includes port automation, terminal construction projects, the future of decarbonization and net-zero shipping, dredging, port hinterland connectivity, labor, disruption, port congestion and cargo flow.

Drayage

Port infrastructure

Breakbulk ports

Longshore labor

Stay informed on port news worldwide with Journal of Commerce. From decarbonization to labor updates, get insights on global developments.

Port News | Journal of Commerce

Port News

Breakbulk News shipping | Journal of Commerce

Breakbulk News

Container shipping news and analysis of ocean container shipping, logistics, supply chains, technology and end-to-end connectivity.

Container Shipping News | Journal of Commerce

Container Shipping News

News and analysis of ocean containerized cargo movement, logistics, supply chains, technology, and end-to-end connectivity. Maritime news and analysis of containerized ocean cargo movement, breakbulk and roll-on and roll-off shipping from origin to destination.

Latest News

More News & Analysis

Cosco slams US port fees as other carriers reckon with potential costs

US tariffs threaten a ‘refresh wave’ of US electronics sales, imports

Three air freight majors form global alliance to expand network reach