Porti & ambiente — le notizie raccolte

Evergreen Marine Corporation’s management said at a shareholders’ meeting yesterday that the Taiwanese mainline operator expects fuel costs to be higher in Q2 than in Q1, as oil prices see-saw amid the continued closure of the Strait of Hormuz. GM Wu Kuang Hui said that Evergreen has signed term supply contracts with bunker suppliers in major ports to manage costs, as it anticipates the Middle East conflict to persist into Q4. Mr Wu said: “This ensures stable bunker supply and reduces price volatility. Suppliers will also flexibly adjust replenishment strategies according to market conditions. “Most of the fuel that Evergreen used in Q1 was purchased at lower prices, and the average fuel cost remained relatively stable at approximately $422 per tonne, lower than the $454 projected for Q4.” With the continued escalation of tensions in the Middle East, recent oil prices are about 50% higher than in Q1. Brent crude prices are around $95.88 per barrel today, up from the average of $79.67 in Q1. Mr Wu said that annual contracts for transpacific and Asia-Europe shipments have been concluded at almost the same levels in 2025, except that fuel surcharges have been included to reflect the higher costs. Despite market players’ declaration of an early peak season, Mr Wu was more restrained, saying: “The Red Sea route is unlikely to return to normal in the short term. With no significant increase in market supply, the supply-demand structure is expected to remain relatively balanced. However, it remains to be seen whether this year’s peak season will start or end earlier than planned.” Alphaliner projects market capacity to grow by 3.9% and cargo volume by 2.5% in 2026, representing the smallest supply-demand gap in recent years. Evergreen’s consolidated revenue for Q1 26 was $2.7bn (TW$86.56bn), down 21% from the same period last year, as average freight rates dropped proportionately, to $959 per TEU, despite overall cargo volume being up by 2% to 2.64m teu. Pre-tax profit fell by 67% from Q1 25, to $333m.

The Premier Alliance is set to drop two weekly calls at the Spanish transhipment hub of Algeciras on its Asia-North Europe services as part of its continuing network restructuring. Lead Premier Alliance partner ONE said the changes to the FE1 and FE3 services would result in “providing direct access to Le Havre from South-east Asia”, and “optimised routing to provide faster transit times to Antwerp and Felixstowe”, respectively. Beginning with the departure of the 8,200 teuONE Hamburgfrom Laem Chabang on 6 June, the Premier Alliance’s FE1 service will feature a port rotation of Laem Chabang-Cai Mep-Singapore-Rotterdam-Hamburg-Le Havre-Singapore-Laem Chabang. This means Le Havre has replaced Algeciras as the last port of call in Europe before the backhaul leg begins. ONE Hamburghas been brought in from the Premier Alliance’s FP1 transpacific service and, according to the eeSea liner database, the FE1 will be operated by 13 vessels with an average capacity of 8,200 teu. The FE1 has undergone a radical transformation this year, from a Asia-North America-North Europe round-the-world service into a far more streamlined South-east Asia-North Europe service, jettisoning three calls in Japan. Meanwhile, on the alliance’s FE3 service, operated in conjunction with MSC, which markets the string as the Condor service, the Algeciras call – the first in Europe on the rotation – will be dropped, with Felixstowe becoming the first port of call. With the departure of the 24,000 teuHMM Dublinfrom Qingdao on 11 June, the new FE3 port rotation will be Qingdao-Ningbo-Yantian-Singapore-Felixstowe-Antwerp-Hamburg-Qingdao. The move will come as a relief for UK shippers who spent much of last year complaining about FE3 reliability. In December, one forwarder toldThe Loadstar: “From a UK perspective, the FE3 which calls North Europe before UK is being seriously delayed in Algeciras and Rotterdam, putting approximately two weeks on transit times; so to avoid this, pressure is being put upon the carriers by us and shippers to tranship UK cargo in Singapore onto the FP2/FE4, to reduce transit times. “This in turn puts additional space pressure on these two UK services,” the forwarder added. Putting Felixstowe as the first European port of call on the FE3 should resolve this, while the Rotterdam call was dropped from the service in March. Last summer, ONE director of product and network for Europe and Africa Stanley Smulders toldThe Loadstarhowport congestion in the Dutch hub was impacting liner services. While MSC is listed as an alliance partner on FE3/Condor, it currently has no vessels deployed on the service, which will now be staffed by 15 ships provided by HMM, Yang Ming, and ONE, with an average capacity of 20,300 teu. The two service changes “appears to indicate that the market to North Europe is sufficiently strong that there is no need to carry Mediterranean cargo to be transhipped in Algeciras”, said Vespucci Maritme CEO Lars Jensen, although he added that it would also likely result in lower emissions surcharges for European importers. “Additionally, under the EU ETS rules, it means that the “carbon tax” to be paid will now be applicable only for emissions between Felixstowe and Hamburg, and not on the long voyage from Asia to Europe,” he said.

Atlas Air Worldwide’s acquisition of a 49% stake in Icelandic ACMI operator Air Atlanta comes as private equity owner Apollo Global Management continues to evaluate strategic options for the US cargo airline, including a potential future sale. Reports emerged last year that Apollo was exploring alternatives for Atlas, which it took private in 2023, amid continued investor interest in aviation, logistics, and hard-asset businesses linked to global supply chains. Against that backdrop, the Air Atlanta transaction appears to strengthen Atlas’s strategic position by expanding its international operating footprint, adding access to additional AOCs and increasing exposure to scarce widebody freighter capacity. Under the agreement announced this week, Atlas will acquire a minority stake in Air Atlanta, while Titan Aviation Holdings, Atlas’ leasing subsidiary, will separately acquire the aircraft owned by the Air Atlanta group and lease them back to the airline companies. Air Atlanta operates 14 widebody freighters, including Boeing 747s and 777s, alongside four passenger 777 aircraft. More strategically, the transaction gives Atlas access to Air Atlanta’s Icelandic and Maltese operating platforms, extending the group’s ability to deploy aircraft and crews internationally through non-US structures. The deal reflects the growing importance of multi-jurisdiction ACMI platforms as cargo operators seek greater flexibility around crewing, traffic rights, sanctions exposure, and market access. Air Atlanta established its Maltese AOC in recent years specifically to expand competitiveness and international reach, with Malta becoming an increasingly popular jurisdiction for ACMI and cargo operators. For Atlas, with its operations centred on its US certificates, the transaction potentially broadens access to markets and operating models that can be more difficult to serve directly through a purely US-based airline structure. The deal also deepens Atlas’s exposure to the shrinking global fleet of available production widebody freighters, particularly the B747-400F and 777F. Atlas chief executive Michael Steen described the transaction as part of the company’s “disciplined approach to strategic growth in a structurally constrained widebody freighter aircraft market”. Air Atlanta will continue to operate under its existing leadership team and operating structure. Following completion of the transaction, which should close in Q3, the Air Atlanta management team will retain a 51% controlling interest in the airline operating companies. “We are pleased to partner with Atlas in a transaction that strengthens our long-term growth trajectory while accelerating our position as a leading European widebody ACMI operator,” said Baldvin M Hermannsson, CEO, Air Atlanta. “We strongly believe in the future growth potential of Air Atlanta, especially with the strategic partnership we are entering into with Atlas today. We will have wider market reach and be better positioned to deliver flexible, high-performing capacity solutions for our existing and future customers.” The Air Atlanta acquisition may therefore offer a clearer indication of how Atlas intends to position itself globally: not simply as a US cargo airline, but as a broader multi-platform ACMI and widebody capacity provider.

Container capacity on the trades between India and China is seeing a rapid increase in response to strong green shoots of demand growth. And Ningbo Ocean Shipping (NOS) is the newest participant in the booming market. The carrier has debuted through a slot deal on vessels operated by Singapore-based X-Press Feeders, which has significantly expanded its network in recent weeks. A call from theX-Press Capellathis week at Nhava Sheva Port (JNPA) marked the newcomer’s entry into Indian trades. The service offers direct connectivity between the busiest gateways at both ends. In China, Ningbo-Zhoushan, merged in 2006, is said to be the world’s largest cargo tonnage handler, aided by large industrial clusters in and around the harbour. Ningbo-based NOC claims it has similar booking partnerships with several other mainline carriers, including Cosco, YML, ONE, HMM, Wan Hai, TS Lines and KMTC. The Indian market foray ties in with its efforts to broaden its trade profile in the region from regional NVO to long-haul service provider. CULines and Sinotrans Container Lines (Sinolines) are also new entrants in the market, bringing aggressive growth strategies. Last month, CULines added two new intra-Asia services, primarily targeting container trades between China and India. The standalone CGX has a rotation of Qingdao-Shanghai-Ningbo-Shekou-Nansha-Port Klang-Mundra-Karachi-Sohar-Khor Fakkan-Qingdao. “CULines will continue to monitor global developments and dynamically optimise its services and operations,” the carrier said. Sinolines, which ventured into India trades in 2023, recently said it was considering adding new port pairs within Asia and beyond to its Indian network “to take advantage of brightening growth potential”. This month it signed contracts with multiple Chinese shipyards for a dozen new containerships – four 8,200-teu vessels, four at 3,000 teu, and four at 1,800 teu – with deliveries expected to begin in 2027. One major factor driving capacity injection into the intra-Asia market is that ocean freight rates have markedly strengthened alongside demand, industry data reveals. Sources say trade flows have become more balanced, with Indian exports, to the Far East, China, and Vietnam mainly, gaining pace steadily over the past few years. Historically, carriers had been thriving on imports into India, with little laden-lifting on the eastbound leg. Jitendra Srivastava, CEO of Mumbai-based Triton Logistics & Maritime, said even as India-China bilateral trade patterns continued to be asymmetrical, the outlook remained increasingly buoyant for logistics service providers. “The surge in demand is now accelerating shipping frequency, infrastructure expansion and capacity upgrades across major Indian ports to manage growing freight volumes,” he toldThe Loadstar. Rates from Shanghai to JNPA are now in the region of $1,800 to $2,000 per 40ft, matching the levels for bookings to North Europe.JNPA to Shanghai rates have moved out of negative territory, and are now hovering at $200 to $250 per 40ft, data indicates.

Six of the nine Republican attorneys general that objected to the looming Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern tie-up remain unconvinced, claiming the railroads’ resubmitted merger filing is still “incomplete”. After their November warning that the merger threatened the “America First” agenda, AGs from Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota said they saw nothing in the resubmitted filing to allay their concerns. In a letter to the Surface Transportation Board (STB), they wrote: “The applicants’ own projections show they will control 50% of US Class I freight rail traffic, and their own predicted market shares are even higher for specific commodities and corridors. “The harm to competition associated with such market shares is clear, yet UP and NS are careful to avoid discussion of these shares. Multiple commentators note projected shares are buried in appendices not easily accessible or interpretable.” On top of market share, there are concerns that a tie-up between the major railroads could provoke “downstream consolidation”. Citing STB rules, the letter claimed UP and NS had failed to consider “the possibility that other railroads might attempt to merge to compete with a combined UP and NS”, nor how the newly formed entity would fit within the market – and there was more. It added: “A combined UP-NS would control key industry assets that are jointly owned and shared by major railroads, including the Kansas City Terminal Railway Co, Terminal Railroad Association of St Louis, and railcar pooling company TTX. The application fails to specify what UP-NS will do to prevent the combined company from having the ability to control these entities or manipulate their operations to benefit the combined company at the expense of other railroads.” However, quite how effective the letter will be in impeding the merger’s progress – the deal is backed by the president – remains to be seen, its filing coming almost a fortnight after the STB’s deadline for comment on the merger application’s completeness. But, pointing to the brevity of the challenge, the attorneys general said the seven amendments included in the filing were complicating the process of fully evaluating the proposed merger. “Due to resource constraints in our offices, we relied on the parties’ submissions to guide our review of the lengthy application and the associated back-up files, which are incredibly voluminous (and which UP and NS were still uploading this week),” they said. “Recognising the important role attorneys general play in protecting the citizens and businesses in our states, we respectfully request that the board waive the deadline and accept this short submission.”

“Do you know what FIATA really stands for?” asked one forwarder, years ago – “Fuck IATA”. In the decade and a half thatThe Loadstarhas covered the ins and outs of IATA, its members, its love of cash, and its relationship with air cargo customers, that answer has often seemed justified. IATA – often compared with that other apparently infinitely wealthy Zurich-based association, FIFA – has a tendency to act unilaterally, without a care for its partners or members’ customers. And here we go again. Sources at WCS in Peru earlier this year noted that there was a new disagreement between IATA and FIATA coming down the road – and it’s now arrived. The latest bust-up is ostensibly about changes to the Direct Air Waybill (DAWB) framework. In reality, it is about something far bigger: who controls air cargo. For years, airlines and freight forwarders have maintained an uneasy peace, periodically interrupted by rows over governance, money, liability, and power. But FIATA’s extraordinary public attack on IATA today suggests relations have deteriorated again. The freight forwarding association has formally challenged proposed IATA changes to the DAWB framework, warning they could create “legal uncertainty”, destabilise the market, and shift liabilities onto forwarders for risks they do not control. And the tone is unusually aggressive – even by the low standards of the IATA-FIATA relationship. FIATA claims the proposals were rushed through with inadequate consultation, insufficient legal and insurance review, and an unrealistic implementation timeline. It says forwarders, insurers, and shippers are all worried the changes could fundamentally alter liability structures across the air cargo supply chain. As a senior air cargo player toldThe Loadstar: “It was an ambush and ram-through in typical IATA fashion. FIATA is right. Who the hell is IATA to dictate such things? Surely the airlines can’t all work together in an abusive market dominant position, corralled by IATA? The EU’s DG Competition, US Justice, ICAO, and court no doubt beckon.” It’s a familiar accusation: the airline body is again trying to impose industry-wide rules through structures they control – agrievance that has haunted relations between the two organisations for more than a decade. For much of modern air cargo history, freight forwarders operated formally as agents of airlines. IATA built the systems, controlled the rules, and effectively governed the commercial architecture of the industry through agency agreements, settlement platforms, and accreditation structures. But over the past 20 years, forwarders have evolved into global logistics companies in their own right, with direct shipper relationships, customs capabilities, compliance responsibilities, and increasingly sophisticated digital platforms. Many no longer see themselves as airline intermediaries. But the industry’s governance structures never fully evolved with them. Repeated attempts to modernise the relationship have either collapsed or descended into acrimony. The most ambitious effort came in the early 2010s with the Cargo Agency Modernisation Programme (CAMP), a joint IATA-FIATA initiative intended to reset relations entirely. The idea was revolutionary by industry standards: forwarders would stop being mere “agents” and become principals, while governance would be shared equally between airlines and forwarders. At the time, insiders described the old relationship bluntly, one forwarder noting a “master-slave relationship”.Another said airlines had historically been able to “dictate the terms” of agency agreements through IATA structures. And for a brief period, it looked as if peace had broken out. But the détente did not last. The project eventually collapsed amid arguments over governance of IATA’s Cargo Accounts Settlement System (CASS), the industry payment mechanism that sits at the heart of airline-forwarder financial relationships. Forwarders argued they were being asked to comply with rules they had little role in shaping. IATA insisted standardised structures were essential for efficiency and risk management. By 2021, the programme had quietly died. Since then, tensions have repeatedly resurfaced. In 2024, forwarders revolted against new IATA financial security requirements for CASS associates, describing them as punitive, opaque, and potentially damaging for SMEs. Even TIACA entered the debate, warning that the “neutrality” of the system was coming into question. Now the battle has shifted from financial guarantees to legal liability, and the stakes are arguably much higher. Airlines face mounting regulatory exposure and are under pressure to tighten accountability across the chain. Forwarders, meanwhile, fear becoming the industry’s liability buffer, carrying legal and financial exposure for processes they do not fully control. Today’s language from FIATA reflects how serious the dispute has become. Insurers are openly warning about uncertainty around liability allocation and insurability of risks. Shippers are raising concerns over claims handling and contractual structures. FIATA itself has invoked formal review mechanisms in an attempt to delay implementation, which had been scheduled for 1 July. All of which suggests this is no longer just another technical argument over air waybills. It is the latest eruption in a much older struggle over power inside the air cargo industry — one the sector still seems unable to resolve. 2012-2014: CAMP promises a “new era” IATA and FIATA launch the Cargo Agency Modernisation Programme (CAMP), designed to replace the traditional airline-agent relationship with a principal-to-principal model and shared governance. 2015: negotiations stall over CASS FIATA objects to mandatory participation in IATA’s Cargo Accounts Settlement System and complains it has no meaningful influence over CASS governance or rules. 2017-2020: reform efforts lose momentum Pilot schemes fail to produce a lasting global framework as disagreements over governance and financial control continue. 2021: IFACP quietly abandoned IATA confirms formal efforts to create a joint cargo programme have ceased, replacing it with consultation mechanisms that still leave ultimate authority with airlines. 2024: revolt over financial guarantees Forwarders attack new CASS financial security requirements as excessive and unfair. TIACA publicly questions whether the system still operates as a neutral platform. 2026: the DAWB liability fight FIATA formally challenges IATA’s proposed changes to the Direct Air Waybill framework, warning they could destabilise liability structures across the air cargo supply chain.

Embattled Singamas Container Holdings executive chairman Teo Siong Seng said today he would take leave of absence from his concurrent role as Pacific International Lines’ (PIL) executive chairman, after the US Justice Department (DoJ) indicted him forcartel-like behaviourwith fellow container makers. On 19 May, the DoJ indicted Mr Teo (pictured) for allegedly colluding with Chinese container-makers CIMC, Shanghai Universal Logistics Equipment (also known as Dong Fang International Container), and CXIC to raise the prices of dry containers by reducing output. The alleged actions were carried out between November 2019 and January 2024. Chinese container manufacturers (Singamas is listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, but its factory is in China) produce 95% of the world’s containers, and the DoJ claims their alleged cartel-like behaviour made US consumers pay more and wait longer for goods. And this coincided with the logjams during Covid, enabling a 100-fold surge in the container makers’ profits. US court documents show that, days after a December 2019 meeting between the alleged conspirators, a Singamas executive reported to Mr Teo that he had reminded the others “not to be high-profile since it might violate the monopoly law or be accused of price manipulation by our customers”. Allegedly, Mr Teo replied to the executive’s report on the meeting that “we also need to keep low-key”. When another Singamas board member said in an email that the discussions “appeared to be anti-competition”, and suggested deleting the email chain, Mr Teo allegedly replied: “Yes I feel the same.” CIMC chairman and CEO Mai Boliang has also been indicted, with Singamas marketing director Vick Ma arrested in France in April and awaiting extradition to the US. Apart from Mr Teo, a Singaporean, all those are Chinese nationals. Mr Teo’s late father, Chang Yun Chung, founded PIL in 1967, but after years of pre-Covid losses, the Singapore-based company struggled and was bailed out by Heliconia Capital Management, a unit of the Singapore government’s investment group Temasek Holdings, in early 2020. The bailout restructured $3.3bn of debt, but diluted the Teo family’s stake to 15%. Mr Teo stayed on as PIL’s executive chairman. His temporary departure from PIL, the 12th-largest liner operator, represents a growing distancing from his corporate and public roles amid the price-fixing debacle. On 22 May, Singapore’s Ministry of Trade and Industryannouncedthat Mr Teo had stood down from his role as chairman of the Singapore Business Federation and as a director of Enterprise Singapore, a statutory board under the government. Mr Teo said today he would not seek re-election as SBF chairman, and was standing down from his post as the National University of Singapore’s pro-chancellor. He said: “I have proactively decided to take these leaves of absence to afford myself sufficient time to attend to this matter [the DoJ indictment], and for the best interests of the aforementioned organisations.”

Escalating trucking charges and tender rejection rates are boosting intermodal traffic in the US – but they also give rise to warnings of congested rail heads, which could trigger detention and demurrage charges. At a glance, intermodal traffic in North America is not having a stellar time. In Q1, aggregate volumes actually contracted 0.04%, to 4.54 million loads, statistics from the Intermodal Association of North America show. That slight decline was due to weaker international flows. Domestic traffic actually rose 3.6%, to 2.3m 53ft containers and trailers, which continued a pattern seen in Q4 25, when overall intermodal volume was down 2% as a result of a 4.7% drop in international volume, whereas domestic containers were up 2.2%. The momentum is continuing, thanks to the dynamics in the trucking market, where Washington’s push to weed out non-domiciled drivers and those with insufficient command of English, combined with business closures of truckers succumbing to economic headwinds, has brought about tightening capacity that has resulted in rising rates and tender rejections. Maryclare Kenney, SVP and chief commercial officer of CSX, said in an earnings call on the railway’s first-quarter results, that higher trucking costs were prompting more shippers to switch to rail. “Our intermodal business has good momentum, with tighter trucking supply and higher diesel prices creating tailwinds for freight conversions,” she said. CSX’s intermodal volume was up 6% year on year in Q1, double its overall volume growth in the period. As Ms Kenney noted, soaring diesel prices are adding to the momentum of the migration from trucking to intermodal. According to Uber Freight’s market update for April, truckload spot rates were up 27% year on year that month, while contract rates climbed 5%-6%. The report also noted that intermodal rates typically lagged truckload pricing developments by three to six months. CH Robinson highlighted a migration to intermodal in its March market update, noting that shippers were looking for the shift for distances between 550 and 1,500 miles. At the time, the company commented that it was too early to determine if the rise in intermodal demand signalled the beginning of a sustained mode shift, or a temporary response to winter weather. Nevertheless, it urged shippers that intermodal transport “should be positioned as a strategic component of transportation planning rather than solely a contingency option”. However, as it continues, the rise in domestic intermodal volumes is beginning to cause headaches over possible bottlenecks, notably at rail ramps. “As shippers change modes from trucking to rail, to find relief from higher fuel costs, we could start to see congestion at inland rail ramps that challenge key entry points for many ocean containers in North America,” warned Paul Brashier, VP of global supply chain at ITS Logistics. He is particularly concerned about Memphis, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth, and Atlanta – “The largest concerns are ramps with high outbound volumes,” he added. While it is unclear how serious the impact on traffic could be, he warned shippers to brace for significant disruption. They should be prepared for post-Covid or 2014 congestion levels, he suggested.