Category Archives: Service Management

The 30-Day Gate for AI

I was unaware of this shift in US policy from reading general media accounts of what’s going on. Gwanhoo Lee identifies clearly the effect on firms playing in the AI marketplace.

As new and better models become available, both China and the US are now going to screen them for national security impact and decide whether to allow sales. The US can no longer claim to be different through allowing competition to determine the best available product.

It’s not surprising as we drift toward a totalitarian government here in the US. First, the national government has taken ownership stakes in high-tech companies such as Intel. Now the government is exercising control over what can be sold in the AI marketplace, so the consumer, particularly the international consumer, no longer determines what’s best through their money choice. It’s national socialism.

Furthermore, the way is now opened for AI decisions by the government to be bought. Back the government position and policies, or you can’t sell your product. If money changes hands to lubricate the decisions, say by support of a White House remodeling or a reflecting Pool redo, we’ve become a third-world country, no different from Angola or Mozambique. (These countries might argue with my characterization, and I agree, it’s egregious of me to make examples of them– but there are lots of examples around the world now.)

While the US leaders can talk the talk, they can’t walk it any more.

The situation is more complicated with AI than with earlier technologies such as relational databases or ERP or TMS/WMS. In those cases, once you purchased, you relied on the vendor to supply maintenance and support. They did it more or less well, and engendered many howls of fury about its quality.

AI is a bit different, because of the learning or training component. An AI product becomes more valuable over time because it trains on a larger and larger set of inputs. The software may improve somewhat, with better algorithms, but also the training set becomes larger, so more refined conclusions can be drawn. You now have two motivations for making a new purchase, or upgrading your subscription.

For users of AI technology purchased from the behemoths, it’s time to focus on exactly what job you want done, and whether some technology will accomplish it. Chasing the latest new version may not serve your specific goals. Your experts need to be able to tell you why results, financial or business, will be measurably better with a new model. Mostly this has nothing to do with the perceived security risks to the US tech environment. but corporate execs can control it much more closely than by following the AI news.

Gwanhoo Lee July 22, 2026

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/30-day-gate-gwanhoo-lee-xvlue

STB addresses rail service standards

The debate about reciprocal switching has been going on for years. That’s a practice that would allow shippers to use a different Class I railroad to carry their goods, even if the rail line their cargo is on is owned by a different Class I railroad. Reciprocal switching access is important in keeping competition between rail lines. Owning the tracks to a siding would seem to guarantee that the owner rail line would get all the business unless reciprocal switching contracts could be agreed.

For years it’s been difficult to get these contracts. Chemical processors have been one of the most difficult areas, because they may have only one rail siding at their plant. They have wanted to be able to negotiate with another rail line for freight rates. But examples abound, usually because of poor service on the Class I rail that owns the sidings.

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) in the US has decided to walk around the problem by opening a new set of regulations defining more precisely what level of service a Class I rail must provide, and to track what level is actually being provided. If adequate service is not being provided, a shipper could ask for relief to use another rail line.

The STB proposal defines three measures, and requires their performance reporting by the Class I rails, in a standardized fashion;

  • Service Reliability, ability to deliver a shipment by the original estimated time of arrival
  • Service Consistency, maintaining a shipment’s movements through the system by looking at transit times
  • Local Service, the ability to perform local deliveries and pickups, known as spots and pulls, within the service window.

Failure to perform on any one of these would be a good reason for a shipper to petition for a reciprocal switching agreement. Some clauses require the rails to submit historical data and provide the data whenever a request is made.

The STB says the rule will incentivize the rails to maintain sufficient capability to meet the minimal service requirements.

Recall that rails have a common carrier obligation to carry the freight that is offered to them. They have it because in most cases they were given the land on which rail lines were built, often in the golden age of railroading around the turn of the 20th century. At that time there were many independent rail lines, and there was a lot of competition for cargo. Now, however, in the US there are only 7 Class I railroads, and each features a certain geographic area. So opportunities for competition on shipping are limited today.

So the ability to have reciprocal switching contracts is very important for avoiding monopoly service and giving shippers options to get better prices.

Joanna Marsh Thursday, September 07, 2023

STB takes long-awaited step in addressing rail service standards

Consolidated Chassis Management Prepares for SACP 3.0 Launch with New Office

Consolidated Chassis Management (CCM), a leading cooperative chassis pool manager, announced it has opened a new, expanded office in Savannah, GA, to accommodate the growing South Atlantic Chassis Pool (SACP) 3.0 team. Launching in October 2023, SACP 3.0 will offer a new chassis provisioning solution that utilizes a single provider pool model.

Chassis pools have made a big difference in the availability of chassis for containers. Pooling chassis is a standard way of covering a varying demand with a lower investment in inventory. If the maintenance is performed to a good standard, the pools will be popular with drivers, because of the standardized agreements for pickup and dropoff.

According to CCM’s CEO Mike Wilson, “SACP 3.0 will revolutionize chassis provisioning in the United States.As we get closer to launch, we are building our teams, expanding our office space and enhancing CIT, our fleet management platform — all to provide the support necessary to ensure SACP 3.0 reaches its full potential.”

With more than 75 sites across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina, SACP 3.0 will continue to be the nation’s largest fully interoperable chassis pool. It will increase and upgrade the existing South Atlantic Chassis Pool with new and refurbished intermodal chassis from major regional port and key intermodal inland hubs.

The South Atlantic region has been a productive location for a chassis pool, with the serious expansion of service to these areas by major container shipping lines. Pools have also played a role on the West Coast at Los Angeles/Long Beach.

SACP 3.0 will transition from the current multi-contributor chassis pool to a single provider utility
type pool, and it will offer over 50,000 chassis to truckers, beneficial cargo owners, ocean
carriers and other port users. The pool is being established cooperatively by The Ocean Carrier
Equipment Management Association (OCEMA), Georgia Ports Authority (GPA), Jacksonville
Port Authority (JaxPort), North Carolina State Ports Authority (NC Ports) and Consolidated
Chassis Management LLC (CCM).

“We are committed to ensuring SACP delivers on its promise, so we will continue to build in our
team and make investments that deepen our presence in the Southeast. The new office is not
only larger, but it is also more conveniently located, bringing us closer to GPA as well as other
members of the supply chain community, including steamship lines and BCO’s,” said Mr.
Wilson.

Some years ago the ocean carriers decided to divest themselves of chassis in the US. They claimed to do this because of American laws that made chassis owners responsible for damage from accidents where they were found to participate in the fault. These liability laws were seen as threats to the liner firms. So CCM was created. As you can see, while independent, it’s related to the Ocean Carrier Equipment Management Association, which is closely allied to the ocean carriers. It’s a liability shifting scheme.

The fact is, ocean carriers must be able to provide chassis for their customers. In the US, it’s not a good business decision for truckers and trucking firms to own their chassis. Customers have different needs, and the chassis has to be chosen for the specific load. A study showed that with economic conditions in the US, a trucker would need to have 90% confidence that customers would want a chassis, to afford owning it. The fraction is nowhere near that.

So the pools and CCA help fulfill that function. It’s a good strategy, and results in considerable savings. I’m glad to see that it is taking off in the Southland of the US.

Liability is also related to maintenance. If maintenance is high quality, a trucker will pick up a good chassis that is not likely to fail on her route. The trucker must bear the immediate expense of a repair on the route, which delays her cash flow. The pool offers a chance for high-quality maintenance. In California, the pools established near LA/Long Beach were required to hire union mechanics, which may have improved the quality of the maintenance. With the CCA pools there is a specific firm to hold responsible for maintaining the chassis.