Connect with us

Non classé

A Volatile Year Ahead: Scenarios for Ocean Freight in 2025

Published

on

A Volatile Year Ahead: Scenarios for Ocean Freight in 2025

Judah Levine

December 17, 2024

Freightos was delighted to host its seventh annual FreighTech conference recently, bringing together leaders in What does 2025 hold in store for ocean freight? The answer to that question starts with a look back at the factors that impacted the market this year, combined with the underlying freight data from the past few years.

And depending on how those play out in 2025 we can sketch worst case and best case scenarios for the coming year, as well as what may be the most likely path the market takes in 2025.

You can check out our 2025 air cargo outlook here, or catch our recent 2025 Ocean and Air Outlook webinar here.

2024 – A(nother) volatile year for supply chains

The Red Sea crisis started at the end of 2023 and continued throughout 2024 impacting operations, freight rates and seasonal demand. Diversions around the Cape of Good Hope meant additional lead times of one to two weeks for Asia – Europe and Mediterranean shippers, and the capacity absorbed by longer journeys and additional vessels – as well as bouts of significant schedule disruptions and congestion at some Asian and European hubs – on these lanes pushed rates up across the container market.

Ex-Asia container rates tripled from December to January/February – up to nearly $5,000/FEU to the US West Coast and $5,500/FEU to Europe – as the start of the crisis coincided with the seasonal demand increase ahead of Lunar New Year. When demand eased in the spring these rates settled around $3,000/FEU, about double typical levels, as diversions continued to keep capacity constrained.

The Peak Season Impact

And with lead times likewise extended, peak season started and ended earlier than usual, pushing rates past the $8,000/FEU mark in July. For transpacific shippers, peak season was also pulled forward by shippers rushing to receive goods before an expected October ILA port worker strike, which ended after three days with both a new wage agreement and a January 15th deadline to resolve the role of port automation or face another strike.

National Retail Federation Q4 volume estimates in December were adjusted well above projections from two months prior as frontloading began ahead of the possibility of a new strike and tariff increases
Data source: National Retail Federation, Global Port Tracker

Tariff Expectations

The new strike deadline and a Trump victory in November meant stronger than expected Q4 US ocean imports – and container rates – as shippers once again frontloaded ahead of a possible strike and now also ahead of expected tariff increases during the second Trump Administration.

And for Asia – Europe shippers, rates started climbing again in November – much earlier than usual for pre-LNY demand – as importers must ensure they move all the inventory they need out of China before the holiday or risk a much longer than usual wait to receive goods after LNY due to continued Red Sea diversions.

The Bottom Line

All of these factors – Red Sea diversions, potential labor disruptions, and tariff threats – remain in play for 2025, with the potential for overcapacity in the market once Red Sea traffic resumes another wrinkle in the story.

Stay informed every single week with our free weekly freight update.

Subscribe now (free)

So what will 2025 look like? Three Potential Outcomes

Worst Case

Including: Continued Red Sea attacks, labor strikes, and increased tariffs.

If attacks on Red Sea traffic persist throughout the year, we should expect shippers – especially Asia – Europe – to continue to move freight earlier than usual impacting the timing of seasonal demand. And though lessons learned this year could mean lower levels of congestion and schedule disruptions, we should still expect freight rates to look very similar to those of 2024 as long as diversions continue.

For transpacific shippers, a prolonged East Coast and Gulf port labor strike in January would cause additional congestion and backlogs, and possibly diversions to the West Coast that would put additional pressure on freight rates from their already elevated starting point.

Transpacific ocean rates have been elevated throughout the year due to Red Sea diversions, but frontloading ahead of expected tariffs is already putting additional pressure on rates as 2025 approaches.

If President Trump persists in tariff threats, and if he follows through on his stated intentions – 60% tariffs on Chinese imports, a universal 10% – 20% on all imports and 25% on goods from Canada and Mexico – then freight rates will face additional pressure up until expectations change or tariffs go into effect.

Frontloading ahead of tariffs will mean higher ocean demand and rates ahead of the tariffs and lower volumes and rates afterwards. Typical seasonality could therefore be skewed as shippers make decisions based on when tariffs will go into effect and not on inventory needs around seasonal goods/spending patterns.

And a sharp increase in demand – if there proves to be only a small window before tariffs go into effect – could also lead to some congestion that would likewise put upward pressure on rates. Tariff increases could also mean some shift in container volumes away from China and toward alternatives like Vietnam and India.

Best Case

Variables: End to Red Sea crisis, labor strikes averted and tariffs emerge as primarily a negotiating tactic

If the ILA strike is averted or brief – which may be increasingly likely given President-elect Trump’s recent support for the union – transpacific and transatlantic shippers will avoid a potential source of significant disruption and possible rate spikes.

And if Trump’s tariff threats turn out to be more negotiating tools than policy early enough in the year, then the end to frontloading ahead of tariff hikes would restore typical seasonality to these markets, avoid additional container rate spikes, and provide a degree of certainty to the many trade lanes and businesses that would’ve been impacted by tariff changes.

Finally, an end to attacks in the Red Sea in 2025 would restore container traffic to this crucial lane. An adjustment period, possibly of several months, will follow and will include schedule disruptions, congestion and delays as services are reshuffled and reset. But afterwards, all the capacity that had been absorbed by the diversions will be released back into the market, restoring typical transit times and container flows, removing a key source of congestion and delays in 2024 and relieving pressure on freight rates.

An end to Red Sea diversions would certainly – after the adjustment period – let rates come down from the elevated levels seen in 2024, but the growing container fleet could also push the market into a state of significant over capacity. This may be considered a best case for some shippers in that this supply surge could lead to extremely low rates like those seen in late 2023 when prices dipped below $1k/FEU on some ex-Asia lanes.

Most likely: Somewhere in Between

Labor Strikes

Though of course not a certainty, incoming President Trump’s explicit support for the ILA, may make a strike – or at least a prolonged one – less likely than before this announcement. The USMX could of course resist, but after conceding in October to probably less government pressure than they could face in January, it may be more likely that the dispute will end before or soon after the 15th and probably more in the ILA’s favor.

Tariffs

Some US tariff increases will almost certainly go into effect at some point in 2025, though the process required for tariff changes will mean they likely won’t happen on January 20th but a month or two later at the earliest. They’ll probably also not take the exact form proposed by Trump until now as he’s already facing domestic and international opposition to these sweeping changes.

But assuming tariff increases will be announced with a runway of several months before they’re introduced – which was the case in 2018 (see our analysis of the impact of those tariff increases here and here) – we’ll likely see container demand skew to before their roll out with rates under more upward pressure in that period too.

Red Sea and capacity levels

In terms of the Red Sea, the Israel – Hamas war is the Houthi’s stated motivation for attacking passing vessels. And though some observers speculate that even once there is a Gaza ceasefire Houthi attacks could continue anyway, it is possible that diversions will end once the war ends. And developments in the region make an end to the war this year more likely than it was in 2024.

As noted above, restored Red Sea traffic will trigger a bumpy adjustment period, after which rates will decrease significantly from their elevated levels in 2024. And though significant overcapacity is possible, in a recent earnings call Maersk speculated that a sharp increase in vessel scrapping, offloading chartered vessels, slow steaming and effective use of blanked sailings will allow carriers to avoid a complete rate collapse even after the Red Sea crisis ends.

And despite the flurry of new vessel deliveries and fears of overcapacity, the orderbook continues to be strong, with a high level of new orders throughout this year, suggesting carriers are confident that the fleet can continue to grow without causing a rate collapse.

So rates will certainly normalize once Red Sea traffic resumes. If that coincides with a drop in demand because tariffs led to a significant pull forward earlier in the year, then it will be even more challenging for carriers to avoid loss-making rate levels. Some increased competition as the new alliances are introduced early in the year could also put extra downward pressure on rates. But it will remain to be seen when the Red Sea will reopen, and what that will mean for capacity levels and rates as a result.

So, yet again, it seems the ocean container market must start the new year with high levels of uncertainty as to what the near future holds.

Stay informed every single week with our free weekly freight update.

Get industry-leading insights in your inbox.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post A Volatile Year Ahead: Scenarios for Ocean Freight in 2025 appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

The Digital Backbone of the Warehouse: Trends Shaping the 2026 WMS Market

Published

on

By

The Digital Backbone Of The Warehouse: Trends Shaping The 2026 Wms Market

The Warehouse Management Systems (WMS) market continues to grow, driven by e-commerce growth, increasing fulfillment complexity, faster delivery expectations, and the need for real-time operational visibility. Organizations are investing in WMS to improve inventory accuracy, throughput, and responsiveness to customer demand. Suppliers are driving WMS progress by implementing capabilities that allow customers to see their warehouse operations digitally, respond to disruptions more quickly, and address labor shortages before they arise.

WMS is shifting from a transactional system of record to a coordination layer across warehouse execution, orchestrating workflows across people, automation, and digital systems. This reflects broader changes in supply chain execution, where integration with robotics, AI, and adjacent systems is now a baseline expectation. ARC research reinforces this view: WMS providers are increasingly expected to manage both manual and automated processes holistically, rather than operate in isolation from material handling systems or automation layers.

Key Trends Redefining the WMS Landscape

Automation as a Core Requirement: Warehouse automation is no longer an add-on; it is a central requirement shaping WMS development. Systems must integrate with robotics, autonomous mobile robots (AMRs), and material handling equipment while balancing human and machine workflows. Learning from past decisions, recommending new ones, and looking into the future to identify anticipated disruptions before they occur.
AI-Driven Execution and Decision Support: AI is increasingly embedded into WMS platforms to support predictive analytics, dynamic slotting, and operational decision-making. In many cases, this includes agent-based tools that help diagnose issues and simulate potential outcomes. Chatbots and agents allow warehouse operators to access information and data faster, reducing the time spent making decisions. Increasingly, companies are releasing solutions on a low-code platform that can be easily customized to an organization’s specific needs.
Convergence Across Supply Chain Execution, WMS is increasingly part of a broader execution ecosystem that includes transportation, yard, labor, and order management. Vendors are positioning their solutions as part of integrated platforms rather than standalone applications. AI is playing a role in the de-siloing of systems. When systems are unified and data is accessible, AI can perform traditional processes, such as stock-out scenarios, which require the ability to see into multiple systems, such as inventory, shipping, and warehousing, much faster than a supply chain planner.

The Challenge: Evaluating a Blurred Market

As these trends converge, the WMS market is becoming more difficult to define and evaluate:

Functional overlap between WMS, WES, robotics platforms, and planning systems
Increasing variation in how vendors describe similar capabilities
Expansion of WMS into adjacent execution domains

This creates a disconnect between traditional market analysis and how buyers actually evaluate solutions. From ARC’s perspective, many of the legacy ways of analyzing the market, such as segmentation by tier or deployment type, do not fully explain how solutions differ in real-world performance or how they are evolving. In response, ARC is shifting its research methodology to better reflect how buyers evaluate technology today. Rather than focusing primarily on market size, segmentation, and historical growth, the approach is placing greater emphasis on:

Functional capabilities (e.g., receiving, picking, optimization, labor management)
Technical architecture (modularity, scalability, cloud readiness, interoperability)
Integration with automation and execution systems
AI capabilities and data utilization
Execution quality and measurable performance impact

This approach aligns with ARC’s internal research scope for WMS, which includes both core execution processes (receiving, put-away, picking, shipping) and add-on modules such as labor management, analytics, and optimization. The shift reflects a broader goal: moving beyond describing the market to understanding solution performance and differentiation at a deeper level.

The Role of the ARC Market Map

To support this shift, ARC has introduced the Market Map as a core analytical framework. The Market Map provides a structured, visual representation of supplier positioning in the WMS market, enabling more consistent and transparent evaluation across vendors.

Evaluation Framework

Suppliers are assessed across two primary dimensions:

Solution Capabilities (Execution Today)
Includes:

Functional capabilities across warehouse processes
Technical architecture (cloud, scalability, interoperability)
Integration with automation and adjacent systems
Execution quality and support services

Strategic Vision (Future Positioning)
Includes:

Product roadmap and innovation strategy
Corporate direction and ecosystem alignment
Customer base and growth trajectory

These dimensions are equally weighted and supported by a structured scoring model that incorporates multiple sub-criteria across both capability and strategy dimensions. The Market Map reflects ARC’s view that the WMS market is no longer defined solely by functionality; it is defined by how well solutions integrate across the warehouse ecosystem. WMS solutions are being compared on their ability to support automation and AI-driven execution, and how well the vendors are prepared for future supply chain demands. As markets grow and technology progresses, we also need to develop new ways to analyze and understand market dynamics. By combining both current capabilities and long-term strategy, the framework provides a more complete view of vendor positioning than traditional market rankings.

Vendor Outreach

ARC has been conducting market research for over 30 years, and we, too, have changed and adapted with the times and technology. From pen and paper to an online market analysis platform that allows for dynamic visualizations. We have adapted and progressed alongside the clients we serve, which is why we are looking forward to delivering our first batch of Market Maps this summer.

We are currently speaking with Vendors in the Warehouse Management System market. Learning about each solution’s differentiators, functional capabilities, and much more. If you’d like to be added to our vendor list and included in our WMS Market Map research, please reach out to (gsimon@arcweb.com).

Manhattan Associates
Blue Yonder
Oracle
SAP

Körber (HighJump / Infios)
Infor
Microsoft (Dynamics 365)
NetSuite

Epicor
Acumatica
Tecsys
Made4net

Mecalux
Generix Group
Deposco
Logiwa

ShipHero
3PL Central (Extensiv)
Infoplus
Cadre Technologies

The post The Digital Backbone of the Warehouse: Trends Shaping the 2026 WMS Market appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Help Shape the Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map

Published

on

By

Help Shape The Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map

As AI, visibility, planning, risk, and orchestration platforms converge, Logistics Viewpoints is developing an analyst-defined Market Map to clarify where decision-making value is emerging — and supplier participation is now welcome.

Supply chain technology markets are becoming harder to evaluate. Established software categories still matter, but they no longer explain where much of the new differentiation is emerging. Planning systems are adding orchestration. Visibility platforms are moving into exception management and recommendation engines. Risk platforms are becoming operating signal layers. Enterprise application vendors are embedding AI across broader suites. Specialized providers are using external data, event intelligence, and analytics to help companies respond faster to disruption.

For buyers, the result is a more complicated evaluation environment. For suppliers, the challenge is positioning. Many companies now use similar language — AI, orchestration, control tower, resilience, visibility, automation, intelligence — while solving different problems at different layers of the operating model.

That is why Logistics Viewpoints is developing the Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map, an analyst-defined view of one of the most important emerging layers in supply chain technology.

Supplier participation is now welcome. If your company is listed below, or if your company is active in supply chain decision intelligence, AI-enabled decision support, orchestration, event intelligence, risk, resilience, control towers, visibility, planning intelligence, or related areas, this is the time to engage. Participation helps ensure that your capabilities are understood accurately before the Market Map is finalized.

The Market Map is designed to clarify the layer above and across core supply chain systems where data is interpreted, signals are connected, tradeoffs are evaluated, and better operating decisions are made. This is not intended to be another logo landscape. The purpose is to define the market, establish boundaries, organize the provider landscape, and create a more disciplined basis for buyer and supplier conversations.

Why Decision Intelligence Matters

For decades, supply chain technology was organized around familiar application categories: ERP, WMS, TMS, planning, procurement, order management, visibility, and execution platforms. Those systems remain essential. But they do not fully explain where value is moving.

The most important shift is the emergence of an intelligence layer that helps companies understand what is changing, why it matters, what options are available, and what action should be taken. That is the practical meaning of Supply Chain Decision Intelligence.

The category includes technologies that materially improve how supply chain decisions are made across planning, execution, coordination, disruption response, risk management, logistics, sourcing, fulfillment, and multi-enterprise operations. It is broader than a single application category, but it is not a catch-all for every vendor using AI language.

The governing test is straightforward: does the technology improve decision quality in a meaningful supply chain operating context?

A dashboard is not decision intelligence. A transactional execution system is not decision intelligence simply because it stores operational data. A generic AI platform is not automatically part of the category unless it is materially tied to supply chain decision-making. The Market Map is intended to hold that boundary.

Providers Currently Under Review

The Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map is being developed around a curated set of providers whose capabilities appear to intersect with this emerging intelligence layer. Providers currently under review include:

Altana
Blue Yonder
Coupa
e2open
Everstream
FourKites
Interos
Kinaxis
Manhattan
o9
Oracle
Overhaul
project44
SAP

These companies do not all compete in the same way. That is precisely why the market needs structure.

Some are associated with planning, scenario analysis, and decision optimization. Some are stronger in logistics visibility, event data, transportation intelligence, or control tower capabilities. Some focus on supplier risk, trade intelligence, resilience, or multi-enterprise network coordination. Some are broad enterprise application providers extending intelligence across large installed bases. Others are more specialized providers focused on risk signals, shipment intelligence, orchestration, or external operating context.

The analytical value of the Market Map comes from making those differences visible. A buyer evaluating supply chain decision intelligence should not treat all of these providers as interchangeable. Nor should suppliers be forced into legacy categories that obscure their actual role in decision support.

Why Suppliers Should Participate

Supplier participation matters because this market is still being defined.

Many providers have capabilities that cross legacy category lines. A company may be known for visibility but now offer decision automation. A planning vendor may increasingly support cross-functional orchestration. A risk platform may function as an operating intelligence layer. A network provider may support decision-making across parties, geographies, and systems.

If those distinctions are not understood clearly, suppliers risk being positioned too narrowly, grouped with adjacent providers that solve different problems, or evaluated only through outdated category labels.

Participation gives suppliers an opportunity to clarify:

How their platform improves supply chain decision-making
Where their capabilities sit relative to planning, execution, visibility, risk, and orchestration
What data, AI, analytics, workflow, or network capabilities support decision quality
Which use cases best demonstrate enterprise value
How their solution differs from adjacent providers that may sound similar in the market

This is especially important in a category where language has become crowded. “AI,” “control tower,” “visibility,” “orchestration,” “resilience,” and “decision intelligence” can mean very different things depending on the provider. The Market Map process is intended to separate substance from terminology.

For suppliers, the benefit is not promotional placement. It is accurate market understanding. A well-informed Market Map helps buyers better understand the provider landscape — and helps suppliers avoid being misread by the market.

Inclusion and Exclusion Logic

The Market Map will focus on technologies that contribute directly to better supply chain decisions.

Relevant capabilities include decision-support layers, orchestration and coordination tools, AI and advanced analytics tied to operating decisions, control towers with real decision depth, context and event intelligence, scenario modeling, cross-functional intelligence environments, and selected enabling infrastructure where the connection to decision quality is explicit.

This includes technologies that help enterprises interpret signals from internal systems and external operating environments. Shipment delays, supplier risk, demand shifts, geopolitical events, inventory constraints, transportation disruption, port congestion, regulatory exposure, and weather events become more useful when they are connected to decisions.

Clear exclusions are equally important. Core systems of record are not included simply because they are important. ERP, WMS, TMS, planning, procurement, and asset management systems belong in the discussion only when they demonstrate a meaningful intelligence layer above the transactional core.

Pure execution tools without decision depth also remain outside the center of the category. The same applies to horizontal BI tools, generic enterprise AI platforms, and narrow point solutions with limited strategic relevance.

These technologies may be useful. Some may even enable decision intelligence. But enablement is not the same as category membership. The objective is not to reward every AI message in the market. The objective is to identify where real decision-making value is emerging.

Why This Is Commercially Important

Decision intelligence is becoming one of the more important ways to understand the next stage of supply chain technology. The market is not moving simply toward more software. It is moving toward more interpretation, more coordination, more contextual awareness, and more decision support across fragmented operating environments.

That shift has implications for both buyers and suppliers. Buyers need a better way to compare providers whose capabilities cut across traditional categories. Suppliers need a more disciplined way to explain where they fit and why they matter. Analysts need a framework that can separate category substance from marketing language.

The Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map is designed to provide that structure.

It will not answer every selection question. No market map can. But it can help buyers ask better questions, compare providers more intelligently, and understand which capabilities are truly central to decision improvement. It can also help suppliers understand how their market position may be perceived within a broader, analyst-defined framework.

Participation Is Welcome

Logistics Viewpoints welcomes supplier participation in the Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map process.

If your company is listed above, participation can help ensure that Logistics Viewpoints has the most accurate understanding of your capabilities, positioning, and role in the market. If your company is not listed but is active in supply chain decision intelligence, AI-enabled supply chain decision support, orchestration, event intelligence, resilience, control tower capabilities, planning intelligence, visibility, supplier risk, trade intelligence, or related areas, we welcome the opportunity to understand where you fit.

Participation does not mean guaranteed positioning, endorsement, or favorable treatment. The value of the Market Map depends on analytical discipline. But supplier input can materially improve the quality of the research, sharpen category boundaries, and ensure that relevant capabilities are understood before the map is finalized.

For suppliers active in this market, non-participation carries a practical risk: your company may still be evaluated based on available information, but without the benefit of your most current explanation of strategy, capability depth, roadmap direction, and customer value proposition.

Next Step

Logistics Viewpoints is developing the Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map as part of a broader Market Maps portfolio for supply chain technology buyers and providers.

To request the Executive Summary, discuss the Supplier Selection Guide, or explore participation in a Supplier Spotlight, contact Logistics Viewpoints.

If you are one of the suppliers listed above, or if your company is active in this market, we welcome your participation in the process.

The post Help Shape the Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Hormuz tension keeps pressure on rates; Section 122 invalidated – May 12, 2026 Update

Published

on

By

Hormuz tension keeps pressure on rates; Section 122 invalidated – May 12, 2026 Update

Published: May 12, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) increased 4%.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) increased 1%.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) increased 10%.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) decreased 5%.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices stayed level.

China – N. Europe weekly prices decreased 3%.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices decreased 3%.

Analysis

The US paused its Operation Freedom, designed to support vessel transits out of the Strait of Hormuz – and which sparked renewed US-Iran exchanges of fire as well as Iranian missile attacks on Gulf states last week – less than two days after its launch.

Even amid sporadic military engagement, US-Iran negotiations continue, though the sides remain far apart, with President Trump stating that he may restart the operation if negotiations stall. In the meantime, Iran announced the creation of a Persian Gulf Strait Authority through which vessels are required to request permission – and possibly pay – to pass through the strait.

Maersk CEO Vincent Clerc estimates that elevated fuel prices due to the closure has the carrier facing $500M per month in additional costs. He also reports that Maersk has so far been able to pass those costs on to customers via higher freight rates.

Freightos Baltic Index container price behavior has varied by lane, however, with transpacific rates up about $1,000/FEU compared to before the war, while Asia – Europe prices that climbed by a few hundred dollars per FEU in March have mostly slipped back to pre-war levels. Asia – N. Europe rates climbed by 10% last week to $2,850/FEU, but prices so far this week are trending down, similar to rate behavior to the Mediterranean earlier this month.

Carriers are planning additional, likely modest, increases for mid-month. In preparation, they are stepping up blanked sailings – with reports of east-west service space getting tight and some containers being rolled – to support higher spot rates during what is still a low demand stretch, and hoping peak season demand picks up to support prices later in the year.

The latest National Retail Federation US ocean import volume report projects June arrivals to be 2% lower than May, with volumes increasing 4% month on month in July before easing slightly in August and further in September. If these estimates materialize, transpacific peak season will be a muted one relative to recent years, with the July peak 8% lower than last year’s tariff driven burst, but also 6% lower than the August peak in 2024.

The NRF suggests that this relative weakness reflects importer caution due to current economic uncertainty. Maersk’s Clerc also suggests that a coming downturn in ocean demand due to higher consumer prices is possible and could make this year’s H2 challenging and possibly loss-making for carriers still facing elevated fuel costs.

Elevated jet fuel prices are contributing to global air cargo rates that are 30% higher than before the war and year on year. Higher costs are pushing some volumes away from the skies when feasible, including some Asia – Europe shippers opting for ocean-air services via West Coast US ports.

Overall though, the market is stabilizing as air space closures decrease and capacity from Gulf carriers continues to recover. Jet fuel prices have also leveled out after coming down from April highs as the market has shifted sourcing for jet fuel – and energy exports more generally – to the extent possible to account for the Persian Gulf export drop, and as demand for fuel has also eased as carriers scrap unprofitable flights.

Freightos Air Index rates decreased slightly or were level on most major lanes last week. Prices out of China were stable at $5.47/kg to N. America and dipped 3% to $5.16/kg to Europe. While China – US rates are now back to pre-war levels, prices to Europe remain 50% higher, but down 15% from their peak in April. S. Asia – Europe rates were stable at $4.66/kg last week – a level 80% higher than in February – but down 10% from a month ago. SEA – Europe prices meanwhile were up double digits last week to a new high of $5.74/kg.

In trade war news, President Trump and China’s Xi Jinping are set to meet in Beijing later this week for a summit aimed at stabilizing the US-China trade relationship – whose status quo will expire in November – but complicated by the Iran war.

US tariffs on China are lower at the moment than before the US Supreme Court invalidated Trump’s IEEPA-based tariffs in February. The White House replaced IEEPA duties with a 10% global tariff based on Section 122 that is set to expire in late July, with the administration working to replace the 122 duty with Section 301-based IEEPA-like tariffs by then.

Last week though, the US Court of International Trade ruled that the president’s use of Section 122 was invalid. The ruling and the court-required refunds were limited to the specific plaintiffs in the case, but open the door for other businesses to sue as well. The White House has appealed the ruling and asked that the tariffs stay in place during the appeals process or until they expire, but these developments do set the stage for another possible widespread tariff refund.

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Freightos Terminal: Real-time pricing dashboards to benchmark rates and track market trends.

Procure: Streamlined procurement and cost savings with digital rate management and automated workflows.

Rate, Book, & Manage: Real-time rate comparison, instant booking, and easy tracking at every shipment stage.

Judah Levine

Head of Research, Freightos Group

Judah is an experienced market research manager, using data-driven analytics to deliver market-based insights. Judah produces the Freightos Group’s FBX Weekly Freight Update and other research on what’s happening in the industry from shipper behaviors to the latest in logistics technology and digitization.

Put the Data in Data-Backed Decision Making

Freightos Terminal helps tens of thousands of freight pros stay informed across all their ports and lanes

The post Hormuz tension keeps pressure on rates; Section 122 invalidated – May 12, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Trending