It’s always interesting to hear what Ryan Petersen of Flexport has to say about trade. In addition to being a top executive in the shipping 3PL arena, he’s often an astute economic observer.
And he’s echoing a refrain lots of ocean shipping customers are singing. Predictability and sticking to schedules is very important. How many times do ocean carriers have to hear the message?
It goes on and on. Truckers at ports are constantly being rattled by individual contract specifications that are probable violations of law. Chassis, as usual, are one of the flash points. There’s always something new to write about when we look at chassis use around ports.
The article has a series of links to past stories in this chain of events, making it quite easy to follow. At play is a $1.8 billion lawsuit against OCEMA, the ocean carriers’ vehicle for providing chassis for their containers.
Because of US liability laws the ocean carriers didn’t want to own chassis in the US. They then found that in the US they could not force truckers to own chassis. there’s a nice game theoretic reason why that won’t work economically. So they (and others) had to create pools. But now they want to control the pool activities. You can’t have it both ways– be out of the business, and running it at the same time!
Is PSR just another shorthand for cost cutting? It seems shippers think they are getting more financial responsibility for admin and maintenance now that most class I rails have adopted PSR practices.
Firms are usually trying to save money. And with the declines and constraints of COVID-19, I’m sure cost cutting is being practiced. but are shippers seeing the short end of the stick on important practices?
It would not surprise me; perhaps rails need a warning to shape up.