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

Supply Chain Planning Is Collapsing Into Execution and That Changes the Software Stack

Published

on

By

Executive thesis. The traditional separation between planning and execution is becoming structurally obsolete. Competitive advantage is shifting from producing a better periodic plan to shortening the cycle from operating signal to decision to executable response.

Periodic planning is giving way to continuous decision cycles

The legacy model assumed that supply chain planning was organized around periodic cycles: assemble the data, produce a forecast, optimize a plan, publish it, and then let execution teams absorb the consequences. That model is difficult to sustain when demand, inventory, transportation capacity, labor, supplier performance, and customer commitments can change faster than the formal planning cadence. The material shift is not that planning disappears. It is that planning becomes a continuously refreshed decision process that sits much closer to execution.

Execution constraints now define whether a plan is credible

A plan is only as credible as its understanding of the constraints that determine whether it can be executed. Available inventory, dock capacity, carrier acceptance, labor, production status, supplier reliability, and warehouse throughput can no longer be treated as downstream details. As those signals move upstream, planning systems need tighter connections to systems of execution and a more explicit model of what is feasible now—not what is mathematically desirable.

The architecture is reorganizing around decisions, not application silos

This changes the technology architecture. Traditional planning platforms, control towers, visibility systems, decision-intelligence layers, and execution applications overlap around the same questions: what changed, what is the business impact, what alternatives exist, and which action should be taken? The answer is unlikely to be one monolithic application. It is more likely to be an architecture in which planning models, event data, enterprise context, decision logic, and execution services interact with far less latency than they did in the classic plan-then-execute model.

Decision latency is becoming a first-order performance metric

The implication for supply chain leaders is that planning quality cannot be judged only by forecast accuracy or optimization quality. Decision latency matters as well. A technically superior plan that arrives after the operating window has closed has limited value. Enterprises should therefore examine how quickly their architecture can detect a material deviation, recalculate the relevant alternatives, expose tradeoffs, obtain the required approval, and propagate the decision into execution.

Buyer criteria must move from module coverage to decision performance

The evaluation question is no longer whether a planning product has the right modules. Buyers need to test how the system behaves when the operating environment departs from the plan. As a result, using real constraints, real data dependencies, realistic exception scenarios, and the systems that will ultimately execute the response. The strongest planning architecture will not eliminate judgment. It will make judgment faster, better informed, and easier to convert into controlled action.

For organizations reevaluating planning technology, the practical starting point is to define the decisions the planning environment must support, the constraints that make those decisions executable, and the evidence required to trust the result. The Logistics Viewpoints Supply Chain Planning Software: Buyer’s Guide provides a structured framework for that evaluation, including planning scope, architecture, scenario analysis, integration, and buyer proof points.

Executive implication

Leaders should evaluate planning technology as part of a continuous decision system, with execution constraints, decision latency, and closed-loop response treated as core design criteria.

Go deeper: provides the durable buyer, architecture, and implementation reference for this topic. Planning, Execution & Visibility connects this analysis to the broader Logistics Viewpoints research architecture.

Related Logistics Viewpoints research

2026 Supply Chain Planning Market Map
2026 Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map

Go Deeper

Read the full Supply Chain Planning Software: Buyer’s Guide.

Explore the broader Planning, Execution & Visibility domain for related Logistics Viewpoints research and analysis.

The post Supply Chain Planning Is Collapsing Into Execution and That Changes the Software Stack appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Why WMS Architecture Now Matters as Much as Feature Breadth

Published

on

By

Warehouse management systems are being pushed into a continuously changing execution environment, making architecture as important as feature breadth. The pressure is not simply to add more automation or AI, but to keep the operating plan aligned with physical reality as that reality changes.

Labor scarcity, tighter customer cutoffs, omnichannel fulfillment, higher sku complexity, automation investment, faster order cycles, and the need to coordinate people and machines in real time are shortening the useful life of any plan. A decision that was correct an hour ago can become wrong when a carrier rejects, a dock closes, an order changes, a piece of automation fails, or a priority customer needs a different response. That architectural emphasis follows naturally from The Warehouse Is Becoming a Cyber-Physical System, where software design directly shapes the behavior of labor, automation, inventory, and physical flow.

The relevant operating events include a late inbound trailer, a constrained dock, a wave that threatens a carrier cutoff, an automation cell that goes down, or an urgent order that must be reprioritized without destabilizing the rest of the facility. These are not unusual edge cases; they are the normal variability of modern logistics. The market is therefore rewarding platforms that can absorb change without forcing every exception into a manual coordination loop.

Architecture is becoming a product differentiator

The operating architecture is ERP and OMS upstream; WMS at the inventory-and-work core; WES/WCS, robotics, conveyors, sortation, labor systems, YMS, parcel, and TMS around the execution edge. This means provider differentiation increasingly depends on event latency, API and network connectivity, data-model quality, workflow controls, and the ability to preserve a coherent operating state across boundaries.

Feature parity can hide large architectural differences. One platform may expose an event after the fact; another may use that event to re-evaluate priorities, prepare a response, and push a governed action into the next system. Both can claim visibility or AI. Only one has compressed the operating loop.

AI matters when it changes the decision cycle

The next layer of value is not AI as a separate product. It is intelligence embedded into the decisions the category already owns. WMS is moving from a transactional warehouse application toward a real-time execution and orchestration layer that coordinates inventory, labor, automation, and downstream transportation constraints The strongest use cases combine reliable execution data, explicit constraints, explainable recommendations, and controlled action rather than treating a model output as the endpoint.

A serious evaluation should test operational fit, configurability without excessive customization, automation integration, real-time work orchestration, data and API architecture, scalability, implementation model, upgradeability, and measurable warehouse outcomes. Buyers should also measure inventory accuracy, order cycle time, throughput, labor productivity, dock-to-stock time, order accuracy, exception volume, automation utilization, and recovery time after disruption. Those measures reveal whether the new capability is actually improving flow, responsiveness, cost, and service or simply creating more software activity.

The market shift is therefore structural. Technology boundaries are blurring because the work itself is becoming more connected. Providers that understand the operating loop will increasingly look different from products built around a static transaction model.

Architecture shows up in warehouse operating metrics

Architecture can sound abstract until it is translated into the measures a distribution center already cares about. Event latency affects how quickly supervisors react to a blocked zone. Integration quality affects whether automation receives the right work at the right time. Data integrity affects inventory accuracy and pick completion. Decision orchestration affects dwell, cutoff performance, backlog, and the amount of work managers have to manually resequence.

For that reason, buyers should connect architecture questions to measurable outcomes. Ask providers to demonstrate what happens when an inbound trailer is late, a work area becomes constrained, an automation cell stops, or an urgent customer order enters after work has been released. The stronger platform is the one that preserves a coherent operating state and adapts without requiring a chain of manual reconciliation.

Related Logistics Viewpoints research

2026 Warehouse Management Systems Market Map
The New Architecture of Logistics
Systems Engineering in Logistics
The Digital Backbone of the Warehouse: Trends Shaping the 2026 WMS Market
Previous in this series: What Is a WMS in 2026? The Warehouse Management System Is Becoming Something More

Request the 2026 Warehouse Management Systems Market Map Brochure

The 2026 Market Map is designed to help organizations understand the structure of the WMS market, evaluate provider differences, and identify the capabilities most relevant to their operating environment. If your organization is evaluating WMS platforms or preparing a shortlist, I would be glad to provide the Market Map brochure and discuss the evaluation questions and provider differences most relevant to your requirements.

Request the WMS Market Map Brochure

For technology providers

Providers may request the brochure, discuss the research framework, or contact me to confirm how their capabilities are represented in the market assessment.

Discuss the research or confirm your profile

The post Why WMS Architecture Now Matters as Much as Feature Breadth appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Shipsy Connects Transportation Orchestration With Exception Response

Published

on

By

Transportation management is expanding beyond planning loads and tendering freight. Modern platforms are increasingly expected to coordinate carriers, track execution, optimize routes, manage exceptions, communicate with stakeholders, and use live operating data to adjust decisions while freight is moving.

Shipsy is positioned around that broader logistics-orchestration model. Its cloud platform spans transportation management, carrier allocation, freight procurement, shipment tracking, route optimization, first-mile through last-mile workflows, and analytics. The company also emphasizes AI-enabled capabilities intended to automate planning and execution decisions across increasingly complex logistics networks.

The connection to exception management is significant. Transportation generates a constant stream of deviations: capacity changes, missed pickups, route delays, delivery risks, documentation problems, and customer-service exceptions. A platform that already coordinates transportation workflows has the opportunity to detect those events, assess their impact, and automate an appropriate response inside the same operating environment.

The buyer question is how well those capabilities scale across real-world complexity. Organizations should evaluate optimization quality, carrier and system connectivity, geographic depth, data latency, workflow configurability, and governance for automated actions. The most useful AI in transportation will be the AI that reliably improves execution, not simply the AI that adds another interface.

Shipsy is included in the Logistics Viewpoints Transportation Management Systems MarketMap and Autonomous Exception Management MarketMap. The combination reflects the increasingly close relationship between transportation management and the systems responsible for identifying and resolving operational exceptions.

The post Shipsy Connects Transportation Orchestration With Exception Response appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending