Porti & ambiente — le notizie raccolte

A pair of US class-action lawsuits has pulled back the curtain on what could become one of the most consequential antitrust cases ever to hit the container equipment sector, alleging that the world’s biggest box manufacturers colluded to restrict output, inflate prices and police each other’s behaviour during the pandemic supply chain crisis. The complaints, filed in a California federal court – one on behalf of US shipper CA Spalding, and the other on bechalf of trucking firm Daybreak Express –follow a US Department of Justice criminal case against container manufacturing giants including CIMC, Dong Fang, CXIC and Singamas. At the centre of the allegations is the claim that the manufacturers, which together produce 95% of global dry containers, agreed to limit output just as demand for containers surged. According to the lawsuits, executives from CIMC, Dong Fang, CXIC and a co-conspirator met in Shenzhen in November 2019 and agreed to restrict production by limiting factory shifts and working hours, refusing to build new manufacturing capacity and introducing monitoring systems to ensure compliance. The most eye-catching detail is a written agreement allegedly known as the “Shenzhen Moon Gazing Equity Investment Fund”, or the “Moon Gazing Fund”. According to the Daybreak Express complaint, CIMC circulated a draft of the contract to other defendants in early 2020, before the companies held a ceremony around March 2020 to execute a final version. The fund allegedly included a mechanism to financially penalise any company that cheated on the output-restriction agreement. The complaint also claims the manufacturers installed about 87 surveillance cameras across 49 production lines to monitor whether competitors were sticking to agreed output restrictions. One filing includes a screenshot of surveillance footage allegedly used in a June 2021 audit of production lines. But it is the internal communications cited in the filings that provide the most revealing glimpse into the alleged cartel. After a December 2019 meeting attended by the manufacturers, a Singamas executive allegedly reported that participants had discussed limiting shifts and hours, building “no new production lines”, installing CCTV in all production lines and requiring each factory to submit a deposit that would be deducted “if any factory break [sic] the agreement”. The executive then allegedly warned colleagues: “I have reminded them not to be high profile since it might violate the Monopoly Law or being accused of price manipulation by our customers.” In another exchange, a Singamas board member allegedly reacted to the report by writing: “The discussion appeared to be anti-competition to me. I feel very uneasy reading your report. May be [sic] we should delete this string of emails after reading?” Singamas chief executive SS Teo, who was last monthindicted by the Department of Justiceover the claims and has had to step down from his roles, allegedly replied: “Yes I feel the same.” The lawsuits further allege executives sought to sanitise internal presentations to avoid attracting antitrust scrutiny. In one example, a draft presentation referred to a “Manufacturing sector official and unofficial association/alliance”, to which one participant reportedly responded: “Please delete ‘alliance’ as it is quite sensitive under anti-trust law.” Another executive allegedly advised against including references to “market discipline” in an investor presentation because of potential antitrust concerns. Mr Teo allegedly replied that he would amend the slide and “take out” words. The allegations suggest the arrangement became increasingly sophisticated over time. Initially focused on limiting factory operating hours, the alleged conspiracy later evolved into formal production quotas. One presentation cited in the complaint set out “total allowable capacity” and “allowable quota” for participating manufacturers, allocating production volumes among companies and factory lines. Executives are also alleged to have exchanged confidential information through emails, WeChat groups and regular in-person meetings. The complaint claims manufacturers used surveillance footage from rival factories to audit compliance. The alleged conduct did not stop at dry containers. According to the filings, CIMC vice-president Tianhua Huang emailed the chief executive of a competing reefer manufacturer in May 2020, stating that dry container manufacturers had “reached a consensus and established industry self-discipline actions” and suggesting reefer manufacturers should “follow the dry box practice”. That proposal included “No capacity increase” and a requirement that “all standard reefer manufacturers run one shift only”. The invitation was allegedly rejected, with the recipient responding that “any such coordination is strictly forbidden by the compliance policies” of his company. The alleged conspiracy unfolded during one of the most chaotic periods in container shipping history, when supply chains were stretched to breaking point and equipment shortages became a defining feature of global trade. It also followed one of the worst years for container manufacturers,who issued a slew of profit warnings to investors over 2019’s financial performance– CIMC’s profit for the year was over 50% down on 2018, while Singamas swung from a $72m profit to a $95m loss in the same period. However, according to the Daybreak complaint, the price of a standard 20ft dry container more than doubled as the pandemic unfolded, rising from roughly $1,600 in 2019 to more than $3,500 by 2021. Prices for a 40ft box are alleged to have climbed from around $2,800 to more than $5,900 over the same period. The lawsuits claim those overcharges were passed through the supply chain, affecting buyers of transport services whose costs incorporated inflated container prices. Manufacturers allegedly enjoyed a windfall. One filing claims CIMC’s container manufacturing profits rose from RMB137m in 2019 to RMB11.3bn in 2021, while Singamas recorded a $187m profit in 2021. The financial stakes are potentially enormous. The complaint does not put a dollar value on the claim, but seeks damages, restitution and disgorgement on behalf of a nationwide class. Under US antitrust law, any proven damages may be trebled, significantly increasing any eventual award.

If – and in this context, “if” is the biggest word in the English language – the fragile peace outlined between Iran and the US holds this week, and an actual deal is signed on Friday, as promised, fuel prices should plummet. Crude oil prices fell sharply on news of the détente, today’s Brent spot price at its lowest since early March, at around $83 per barrel, the agreement reportedly including reopening the Hormuz strait and Iran and US lifting their respective blockades. Naturally, a full resumption of Middle East fossil fuel and related products exports will take time – mines need to be cleared and shipowner confidence restored, but oil traders see yesterday’s news as evidence that the stalemate is nearing an end, hopefully removing the need for further inventory drawdowns. So, baby steps, but we can expect a gradual resumption of traffic through Hormuz, with tankers prioritised and crude spot rates consequently declining – but this will coincide with the period in which shippers are likely to be hit with some of the biggest bunker adjustment factor (BAF) increases in recent memory. 1 July will be a watershed date, when most carriers are expected to set their BAFs for the third quarter, wich will give many of them the opportunity to recoup the extra fuel costs accrued in Q2, due to Hormuz’s closure – estimated to be around $50m a week by Hapag-Lloyd CEO Rolf Habben Jansen. Forwarders and shippers on the main east-west trades fear the new BAF levels will be eye-watering, and will come on top of the elevated spot freight rates from an early peak season, which was largely the result of shippers front-loading to beat the same 1 July deadline… that’s irony for you. It’s going to be a tough period for customer-carrier relations; with liners trying to recover the Q2 fuel expenses just as fuel costs are falling through the floor – and there is another factor looming on the horizon: a return to Red Sea routings. The precipitous rise in recent Asia-Europe spot rates resulted from a tight demand-supply situation, caused by the extra distance of Cape of Good Hope routings. Reopening Hormuz is clearly a precursor to resuming Red Sea and Suez transits, which, if enacted en masse, would effectively add 15% to 20% capacity to the trade, and most likely send spot rates into freefall. This is a vision of a near future forwarders and shippers would love to see – indeed, anyone with a passing interest in world trade would too – but we should remember the old British idiom: “turkeys don’t vote for Christmas”.

The sharprise in transpacific spot ratescould prompt a fresh influx of non-alliance container services on the Asia-US west coast trade, according to new analysis from Sea-Intelligence. In itsSunday Spotlight, the analyst examined a potential relationship between freight rate levels and the amount of capacity operated by carriers outside the major vessel-sharing alliances, finding a strong correlation stretching back more than a decade. Using data from its Trade Capacity Outlook database, Sea-Intelligence tracked weekly capacity deployed between Asia and the North American west coast from 2015 through to the end of August 2026. The data shows a dramatic spike in non-alliance capacity during the pandemic boom, when freight rates surged to record highs. Conversely, non-alliance services were among the first to be withdrawn during the early stages of the subsequent downturn. “High freight rates often result in an influx of smaller, niche carriers. And conversely, that low freight rates result in these smaller carriers withdrawing from what is seen as an unprofitable market,” Sea-Intelligence explained. A four-week rolling average of capacity deployment, compared against weekly Shanghai-Los Angeles spot rates from Drewry’s World Container Index showed an 83% correlation with spot rates after a 15-week lag. Source: Sea-Intelligence “It would therefore be correct to conclude that there is a quite strong correlation between spot rates and the non-alliance market share of the operated capacity… it mainly takes some 15 weeks before we see rate changes reflected in capacity deployment,” said Sea-Intelligence. A predictive model based solely on spot rate developments also closely matched actual non-alliance market share over time. Source: Sea-Intelligence However, the analyst explained that, since the launch of the industry’s new alliance structure in early 2025, non-alliance capacity had remained around five percentage points below the level predicted by the model. Source: Sea-Intelligence Sea-Intelligence said recent increases in transpacific rates had yet to translate into announcements of new independent services. Nevertheless, if the relationship observed since 2015 continued to hold, the market could soon see a significant injection of capacity. The analyst concluded: “We should therefore expect announcements of sizeable injections of new transpacific services to the west coast by either non-alliance carriers or by alliance carriers launching [their] own services outside the scope of their alliances.” Meanwhile, James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers Forum toldThe Loadstar Podcastthat the concentration of market share held by the four alliances, and 10 carriers, should be of concern to shippers. “The dynamic is obviously, and always has been, in shipping lines’ favour, given the concentration of market power there,” he said. “In the long run, this has got to be of concern to everyone in the industry. We shouldn’t have a power dynamic; we should have genuine partnerships.” Watch the latest episode of News in Brief on YouTube and subscribe so you never miss an episode!

War in the Persian Gulf decimated what was looking like a bright spot for container trades at the start of 2026, but with a deal between the two antagonists now agreed (if not yet signed) there is renewed hope the trade may see something of a late-year bounce. After starting with growth rates of 17.4% and 27%, year on year, volumes South Asia/Middle East to Sub-Saharan Africa collapsed in March and April, falling 15% and 8.5%, respectively, according to the latest data from Container Trades Statistics (CTS). Forwarders toldThe Loadstaranything heading east out of Asia toward Africa had been hit by the loss of access to the Persian Gulf, one described the trade as a “dog’s dinner” since the onset of the war, and seemingly its influence is continuing to be felt. However, after building up the prospect that a deal between the US and Iran may have finally been struck, it was confirmed last night – coinciding with the start of celebrations marking 250 years of American Independence and President Trump’s birthday – if not signed. The deal is a 60-day ceasefire extension that, while a fuller agreement is reached, includes provisions to reopen the Strait of Hormuz within 30 days (providing time for mine-clearing) and suspends fighting in Iran and Lebanon. Vespucci Maritime CEO Lars Jensen said there may be “a somewhat cautious approach” from carriers, noting AIS data from Vesselfinder gave no indication of “an immediate surge in vessels heading for a transit following the announcement of a deal”. He added: “If the deal holds and it appears safe to transit [Hormuz], container carriers are likely to begin gradually shifting back to calls in the Persian Gulf, potentially with dedicated extra-loaders, initially to clear the backlog created by the crisis. “A full return to pre-crisis normality will likely take two to three months. Not just because vessel rotations need to be altered, but we also need to see empty return patterns normalised, plus there will be cargo, which has been waiting elsewhere ready to ship into the Gulf.” Between now and Friday, all eyes will be on the lookout for anything that may scupper pens being put to paper, with Israeli strikes against Lebanon one of the more likely powder kegs that will explode a deal several months in the making. For those active on Middle East/South Asia-Sub-Saharan Africa trades, the deal cannot come soon enough, with forwarders tellingThe Loadstarshippers have already been in touch to discuss possibilities. According to CTS, Sub-Saharan Africa-to-Middle East/South Asia trade proved somewhat more resilient to the impact of the situation in the Persian Gulf, managing three successive months of double-digit year-on-year increase before a collapse in April. And this seems to be where much of the eager discussions are taking place, with exporters in South Africa proving particularly energised about the opportunities should the deal get over the line at the end of this week.

Air cargo shippers are increasingly delaying tender decisions and extending existing contracts, rather than locking themselves into fresh agreements at today’s elevated rates, according to market analysts. They are betting that the extraordinary pricing surge triggered by the Middle East crisis may finally be easing. Data from Xeneta shows global air cargo spot rates averaged $3.40 per kg in May, up 41% year on year, despite signs that market conditions are beginning to soften. While demand remained resilient, growing 4% year on year, capacity continued to recover and ended last month 1% above last year’s level. According to Xeneta chief airfreight officer Niall van de Wouw, many cargo buyers are opting to wait rather than commit.He said:“Shippers clearly have a sense of ‘here we go again’, in terms of rate volatility, but they are adjusting and buying time by temporarily accepting the surcharges that come with extending existing capacity contracts. “This is because they’re not ready to make a longer-term commitment until there are clear signs the market is normalising.” The strategy reflects growing confidence among shippers that rates may be close to a peak, even if the decline is likely to be gradual. “We are on record saying rates wouldn’t come down as fast as they went up, and that is the case,” Mr van de Wouw added. “It takes a while for rates to adjust to the market situation, but I would not be surprised to see year-on-year spot rate comparisons decline in June.” There is already some evidence to support that view. While May spot rates remained sharply elevated, Xeneta noted that long-term rates, which tend to provide a more forward-looking view of the market, have eased since peaking at the end of April. Meanwhile, the latest figures from WorldACD show global airfreight pricing slipped 1% week on week in the first week of June, while capacity recovered by 1% after the disruption caused by a convergence of public holidays, including Memorial Day, Pentecost, and Eid al-Adha. WorldACD also reported an 8% week-on-week increase in capacity from the Middle East and South Asia region, although capacity remains 28% below pre-conflict levels, suggesting there is still room for further recovery. A potential reopening of the Strait of Hormuz is also hanging over contract negotiations. While air cargo rates were pushed higher by fuel concerns, disrupted networks and emergency freight movements during the conflict, a return to normal energy and shipping flows could remove some of those supports. That possibility is one reason many shippers may choose short-term extensions over fresh tenders, betting that today’s elevated rates may not survive a full market reset. The cautious approach from cargo buyers reflects a wider desire for stability after several years of disruption. Speaking on this week’sNews in Brief podcast, Global Shippers Forum director James Hookham said supply chain disruption had again forced shippers into short-term adjustments, while their longer-term preference remained ‘predictable costs and reliable contractual relationships’. “What shippers really value are long-term relationships,” he said. The question now is whether the market will deliver the rate relief many cargo buyers are expecting. While the apparent end of hostilities between Iran and the US has improved sentiment, demand remains supported by sectors such as electronics and other high-value cargo. Xeneta also warned that renewed trade tensions and additional tariff proposals from Washington could yet alter demand patterns in the second half of the year. For now, however, the mood among many air cargo buyers appears to be one of patience rather than panic. Despite rates remaining far above historical norms, many are choosing to wait for the market to come to them, rather than locking-in pricing they increasingly suspect may prove temporary. Check out today’s News in Brief podcast featuring Global Shippers’ Forom James Hookham

Great trip to Marrakech last week, catching up with airfreight friends at Neutral Air Partner for its 10-year anniversary (Happy Birthday!), meeting industry players and having a look into how Morocco has progressed since my last trip in 2023. Frankly, Marrakech is not my favourite city in the country. That honour goes to Tangiers and the beautiful scenery driving from Tangiers along the sea to the port of Tanger Med. The varying shades of blue as the Mediterranean Sea and the ...

MSC is rebooting its hub operations for the ocean trades in and out of South Asia, industry updates suggest. The world’s largest container line is gradually switching its transhipment calls in Sri Lanka from Colombo to Hambantota Port (HIP), a new harbour developed by China Merchants Port Holdings. MSC has replaced a regular call at Colombo with HIP on its Far East-South Africa Ingwe service, featuring an updated rotation of Qingdao-Shanghai-Ningbo-Shenzhen (Shekou)-Singapore-Port Louis-Ngqura-Durban-Port Louis-Hambantota-Hong Kong-Tianjin-Qingdao. The carrier has also added a 12thvessel to the rotation “to enhance capacity and service reliability”. Industry sources said the port substitution would “cement MSC’s position in Asia-South Africa trade”, a corridor on which the Geneva-based liner has increased capacity in recent years, and follows a series of ad-hoc sailings at HIP to “test the water”. In April 2024, HIP, primarily designed as a multipurpose cargo gateway, launched container operations by hosting a call from theMSC Ingrid. At the time, CMPort said: “With MSC’s collaborative partnership, HIPG will now look at expanding our investment in equipment and other infra-structure facilities, enabling us to service larger vessels on the east west shipping route.” HIP embarked on multiple expansion projects to support regular calls from major container services, including $108m on harbour crane upgrades this year, claiming the expansion would almost double HIP’s box capacity, to 2m teu annually. “HIP’s location, just 10 nautical miles from the main east–west shipping route, positions it as a reliable and efficient option for shipping lines seeking minimal deviation and operational stability,” the Chinese conglomerate said. Meanwhile, Colombo Port has been under capacity pressure for some time, due to additional transhipment demand stemming from geopolitical disruption. Volumes reached a new high last month of 776,261 teu, from 761,096 teu in April, as Middle East-related diversions continued, according to the latest data. Competition for transhipment volumes out of the subcontinent region remains fierce, as new port developments take hold in India: Adani Ports’ Vizhinjam is already operating at full capacity, with its phase 2 expansion advanced in order to cope with projected demand. Vizhinjam also had record monthly throughput last month, handling 130,863 teu, data shows.

Amazon raised questions in the US less-than-truckload (LTL) sector last week with the unveiling of its expanded LTL offering, declaring it was responding to interest in the market. The announcement also caused some confusion over what the e-commerce giant turned logistics provider is doing in the LTL sector. Amazon’s LTL service previously offered inbound transport to its fulfilment centres, but now declared it “officially open for all businesses to any type of destination”. Jim Ruiz, director of Amazon Freight, declared: “Now Amazon LTL can move your freight wherever it needs to go, servicing destinations nationwide for businesses of all sizes.” Customers can: move shipments from one to six pallets, or 150 to 15,000 pounds; can book next-day pick-ups for orders placed by 5pm; use same-day pick-up through drop trailers; or schedule regular pick-ups for larger shipping volumes going to clients’ warehouses, distribution centres, and retail locations as well as to Amazon fulfilment centres. For improved visibility, added the firm, the service features GPS shipment tracking, automated appointment scheduling, electronic proof of delivery, and EDI connectivity with current shipping systems. According to Mr Ruiz, the new offering meets demands customers have expressed repeatedly, notably visibility in line with truckload services. The new service is under the wings of the Amazon Supply Chain Service unit, unveiled last month. According to Amazon, LTL “is built on Amazon’s own operational capabilities and the same foundation that powers its supply chain at scale”, including “terminals across the country”, and a fleet of over 80,000 trailers and 2,400 intermodal containers. This raised some eyebrows in the industry, as Amazon had previously not been associated with a network of LTL terminals, an aspect widely considered the chief entry barrier to the sector. “What has 80,000 trailers got to do with LTL? And who needs intermodal containers for LTL?” asked Satish Jindel, founder and president of SJ Consulting. “You need a terminal network,” He added that the biggest LTL carriers don’t have one-third of the trailers Amazon touted in its release. The Loadstarasked Amazon whether it had a network of LTL terminals, if it was using fulfilment centres, proprietary infrastructure and equipment for the new service, and if it was using third-party service providers. A spokesperson said Amazon Freight contracted with carriers for pick-up and delivery for the LTL service, but provided no details on the nature of the facilities used, other than the company has terminals and will add more this year. The Amazon Freight LTL section of the company’s website features a map of its US coverage, which shows a high density of terminals for an LTL operation, with five facilities around Indianapolis, three in the Detroit area, and two in the Kansas City area, which is more typical of fulfilment networks. Mr Jindel concluded that Amazon is essentially setting itself up as a broker for LTL service, competing with the likes of CH Robinson rather than with LTL carriers themselves, but this is not how financial markets perceived the news. The announcement sent LTL stocks tumbling, with shares of Saia dropping 3% and ArcBest 4%, while Old Dominion Freight Line and XPO Logistics shares fell 5%. According to Mr Jindel, it would be hard for Amazon to build up a network of LTL terminals. Being noisy and operating at night, this type of facility meets strong opposition in neighbourhoods, he noted. “They should have bought Yellow’s network,” he said, referring to the low-cost LTL that ceased operations, whose terminals were subsequently snapped up by rival LTL operators. Presumably stocks of LTL carriers hit by the Amazon announcement will recover, as the outlook for the sector remains strong. Still their boardrooms were unlikely to be thrilled. They are not alone, though. According to one report, Amazon’s announcement of its Supply Chain Service arm in May sent UPS shares down more than 10%.

There is a photograph of CH Robinson CEO Dave Bozeman sitting in his office at the Eden Prairie headquarters, taken in January 2025. By the time that picture was published, the company had reduced its total employment by 31%, a figure that includes both AI-driven attrition and the divestiture of its European Surface Transportation business. Employment peaked at 17,399 in 2022. As of early 2026, it stood at roughly 11,855. The company didn’t do it with a single dramatic ...

In this episode, host Charlotte Goldstone is joined by two leading industry voices to unpack the biggest stories shaping global supply chains. First, Charlotte speaks with James Hookham, director of the Global Shippers’ Forum, about growing shipper frustration over ocean freight pricing, opaque carrier surcharges, and the shifting balance of power between carriers and cargo owners. They discuss increasing market concentration among container lines, what it means for competition and resilience, and the potential impact of new US customs enforcement measures on importers. Later,Loadstarpublisher Alex Lennane joins the podcast to explore why Europe continues to struggle to produce freight-tech giants despite a thriving innovation ecosystem. They also examine how artificial intelligence is transforming freight forwarding operations, the rapid growth of pharmaceutical air cargo services, and why AI-related shipments are becoming one of air freight’s most important growth drivers. Finally, Ms Lennane shares her early thoughts on the latest escalation of tensions around the Strait of Hormuz and the implications for global supply chains. Tune in for expert analysis of the trends, challenges, and opportunities shaping logistics, shipping, and air cargo markets worldwide. Watch the episode on our YouTube channel and subscribe so you never miss an episode! https://youtu.be/un7JSztdi- Click here to receive an email notification every time we release a podcast.