Tag Archives: intermodal

Heartland shippers feel 20-foot box squeeze

Twenty-foot containers are better than 40-foot containers for many ag products, and for machinery. Neither of these completely fills a container, and the smaller size means less blocking. But the containers are in short supply in the Midwest.

Twenty-foot containers are also ideal for products like soybeans, which have considerable Midwest-to-Asia container trade. They are a better size for shipments, because they are a bit smaller. We can’t always get a full forty-foot container because of the order size, which for premium products tends to be smaller. High-quality non-GMO beans often are not grown in the large bulk quantities.

Fewer products are shipped to the Midwest in 20-foot containers. And apparently, many of the 20-footers from the Far East are simply reused in California and Washington, rather than moving east. Goods could even be transshipped there to 53-footers for the ride into the Midwest. There’s no shortage on the West Coast.

This kind of problem is what plagues logistics operators of all kinds, as well as shippers. A simple little issue, very hard to do anything about. How do we cope with it?

By Chris Gillis Tuesday, April 28, 2020

Link: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/heartland-shippers-feel-20-foot-box-squeeze

How much wood would a container manufacturer chuck?

Good old fashioned Operations Management; saving money by reducing the amount of wood used in container floors.

 Chris Gillis Thursday, September 10, 2020

Link: https://www.freightwaves.com/news/how-much-wood-would-a-container-manufacturer-chuck

Truckers seek $1.8B from ocean carriers for alleged chassis overcharges

Once again intermodal container chassis become a bone of contention.Ocean carriers brought this on themselves by trying to escape liability for accidents caused by defective chassis. They created a system in which they could retain shadow control over chassis availability while not appearing as the responsible party.

The problem today, with declining intermodal shipping, is with the chassis pools created to give cargo owners a place to obtain a chassis when a shipment needs one. The pools were supposed to provide maintenance services on the units to assure they would be in good repair when they were picked up, reducing the chance of accident. However, there have been many trucker problems with the nature of the chassis use agreements; where they must be dropped off, and when. The words in the story are “denying truckers choice of equipment providers at ports and inland locations”.

I don’t think they will win on that claim. But it’s quite possible that there have been undercharges to ocean carriers and overcharges to truyckers. And since OCEMA, the chassis pool operator, was founded by ocean carriers, it’s probable the charges were arranged in carriers’ favor whenever possible.

There’s no question the truckers, who are on the low end of the totem pole, bear the brunt of the problems. And they have very few ways to try to right things. This is one attempt. There will be more until treatment of truckers is economically fair to them. It may never happen.

Chris Gillis Thursday, August 20, 2020

https://www.freightwaves.com/news/truckers-seek-18b-from-ocean-carriers-for-alleged-chassis-overcharges

Thanks to my good friend Chris Clott, ABS Professor of Logistics and Supply Chain at SUNY Maritime, I’m posting a copy of the complaint.