Category Archives: Supply Chains

Beginning of the end for carriers’ bull run

Drewry’s Weekly Feature Articles are usually full of good information, though at an aggregate level. This week’s issue is notable for its information on when the congestion and high ocean prices will end.

This graph shows that high volume ports are still seriously congested, while medium and low volume ports are far better off. The Z-scores are based on the 2019 average, so they represent the difference from that baseline level of congestion.

Source: Drewry Maritime Research
Note: Based on the z-score deviation from 2019 averages of the number of ships waiting outside selected ports. Only considers waiting events longer than 4 hours to avoid capturing ships passing through port waiting zones.

The current Drewry customer surveys show that most customers think the congestion in North America won’t dissipate until 2023, perhaps the first half; or maybe even the second half. The reasons given seem to be that there has not been much change in the supply chains that serve the ports, especially the large ports. It’s clear that US supply chain participants such as rail lines, truckers, warehouses, and equipment suppliers such as chassis yards and suppliers, are having trouble cooperating to get goods to move faster and empties returned and refilled in timely ways. There’s little confidence that that will change.

The threat of a longshoremans’ strike at LA/Long Beach, where negotiations have begun, is another factor. I, for one, think that the negotiations will be successful, though not done on time. I think both sides have too much political capital to lose by failing to agree. It would be catastrophic for both the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) who negotiates for the management side, and the International Longshore Workers Union (ILWU), representing labor, if they can’t forge a position. We can’t predict whether the major issue, how to implement automation without eliminating longshore union jobs, will be settled to allow a lot more automation this time. But they don’t have to completely settle this right now; it can come up again in a later round, and the ports on the West Coast can meet quite good throughput goals without changing much in the automation activity right now.

Unfortunately, the PMA has a history of being sticky in negotiations. It’s sad, because some of my former students at Cal State Maritime work for the PMA, and others are with the terminals at the ports. But I’m no expert on PMA dynamics. I just hope everyone is adopting a reasonable attitude.

The expectations for easing in Europe and Asia are similar, with customers of Drewry’s believing the congestion problems will continue into 2023. There are different issues there, though including China’s COVID shutdown policies.

Most of the survey participants believe that ocean carriers will continue ‘capacity discipline’ far into next year. This can be translated as blanked sailings. So there is little hope of reliability turning around for the foreseeable future. Private or dedicated fleets could continue to be a good idea for very large importers to the US.

Theo Notteboom and Pierre Cariou have just written a paper contrasting Walmart and Nike’s dedicated fleets with the standard ocean liner trade to West Coast North America, in the light of COVID disruptions. You can find the paper here. It indicates that quite different strategies combining choice of origin and destination and hinterland inventory locations are possible for dedicated fleets. They offer these larger shippers good opportunities to increase reliability and reduce costs. It’s done by thinking about the entire supply chain rather than just the maritime link. Perhaps 3PLs can help other shippers s well, by offering different packages with dedicated portions. Flexport has done some of that with air shipments in past years, with their own airfreight contracts.

But in general, it’s very hard to get supply chain participants to think in a cooperative manner. We see this every day in the complaints being made when any proposal for coordination is brought forward. With dedicated service there’s only one decision point.

Cooperation is going to take massive effort on the part of supply chain participants. Visibility is nice but will only go so far. Coordination schemes have to be found to keep congestion at bay.

Reading Drewry’s is a good way to stay in touch with the bigger picture.

Drewry – Weekly Feature Articles – Beginning of the end for carriers’ bull run

Drewry – Weekly Feature Articles – Beginning of the end for carriers’ bull run

A potential economic recession and the supply chain bullwhip are colliding

Freightwaves’s SONAR app has a lot of excellent data that it makes readily available. This post by the CEO shows some clear trends in freight, particularly ocean freight.

One of the interesting graphs shows that recently the number of containers per shipment has dropped a lot. It’s based on the number of bills of lading, and the container volumes in twenty-foot units (TEU) in green.

The most obvious fact predicting this number is that order size for containers is dropping. Perhaps the shippers need less stuff.

Or perhaps they are finding other ways to get them. Walmart and Home Depot, for instance, are running their own liner services, so perhaps shipments moved on them are not showing up. Or perhaps they are ordering domestically.

The service on the container lines and alliances has been so horrible that supply chain managers who really need reliability are becoming squeamish about using them.

I think we can look for these ratios to stay similar till the container lines and alliances start regularizing their schedules and improving their on-time delivery rates.

SONAR is a good place to look for an overview. Now there needs to be some analysis. Visibility is only so valuable. It needs analytics to determine causes and relationships.

Craig Fuller, CEO at FreightWaves Follow on TwitterTuesday, June 21, 2022

A potential economic recession and the supply chain bullwhip are colliding – FreightWaves

FMCSA revising guidance on freight brokers and agents

The list of questions to be asked to test whether freight broker functions are being satisfied is interesting.

An important controversy is whether load boards are performing broker services. Usually these boards provide load choices for truckers for a membership fee. The actual transaction is between the shipper and and the carrier, and the freight payment is not processed by the load board.

Conventional brokers perform these matching services but collect the fees for each deal, paying the carrier directly using the money collected from the shipper, and deducting their brokerage fee.

The load board service is in some ways similar, and in some ways different. So there are arguments to be made on both sides. A study is required to see if the FMCSA should weigh in to make definitions differently and impose any rules changes.

The main requirements for brokers are to register with the FMCSA, and to file a bond to cover cases when the broker and the other parties cannot agree on the settled amounts of a transaction, or the resolution of claims when the broker goes out of business.

To what extent should load boards be required to do these things? Or is a different type of registry required, to be sure that load boards follow established business principles?

There’s a similar scenario in US government regulation: the FMC’s regulation of ocean freight forwarders or brokers and non-vessel-owning common carriers (NVOCCs). While the differences between the two are not similar to the truck broker case, the pattern of having two registration entities is the same.

It will be useful to see if the FMCSA can find any specific performance reasons why load boards or matching services should be subject to specific regulations.

I suspect that there should be some controls on their practices. But the controls required may not be well covered by making them freight brokers, as the rules are currently framed.

Truckers probably need some protection if a load board goes out of business or fails to deliver load contracts as they promise. And there should be some regulations to speak to the nature of contracts offered and their fine print that might be unfair to either the trucker or the shipper. But these shouldn’t be more severe or more far-reaching than those imposed on true brokers.

Truckers certainly have much more freedom to use a load board or not, and to accept contracts generated or not, and this is an advantage for them individually. They can select the kind of service relation they would like to provide.

John Gallagher Thursday, June 9, 2022

FMCSA revising guidance on freight brokers and agents – FreightWaves