Connect with us

Non classé

What 2025 Means for 2026: Ocean and Air Freight Forecast

Published

on

What 2025 Means for 2026: Ocean and Air Freight Forecast

Published: January 5, 2026

Blog

The year 2025 was another tumultuous one for both ocean and air freight markets. Some of the key drivers of freight trends in 2025 are likely to continue impacting markets in 2026, while others may give way to new factors and trends. What follows is a rundown of those key drivers in 2025, and data-based projections for what these could mean for the new year.

Check out our Global Freight 2025 Year in Review and 2026 Lookahead webinar here

Key Takeaways for 2026:

Trade war dynamics significantly disrupted transpacific ocean freight seasonality in 2025, with frontloading driving stronger H1 than H2 volumes and an overall volume dip for the year.

Global container volumes nonetheless grew as China diversified export markets. A more stable US tariff landscape suggests a likely return to freight seasonality in 2026 – though SCOTUS’s pending IEEPA ruling creates uncertainty – and growth globally even if US imports contract.

Fleet growth created oversupply despite continued Red Sea diversions – and drove consistently lower year on year rates in 2025 – a trend likely to continue into 2026 as new vessels continue to enter the market.

Carriers are also taking cautious steps toward a Red Sea return, increasing the likelihood of resumed Suez traffic in 2026; the transition will initially cause significant congestion and delays at European hubs as well as upward pressure on rates. Once the congestion unwinds though, the released capacity will exacerbate oversupply.

Air cargo proved resilient despite the trade war, both globally and to the US. The US de minimis closure for China initially caused a sharp decrease in transpac volumes; but by July, demand recovered to 2024 levels through e-commerce adjustments and increased general cargo from places like Vietnam where electronics exports have surged.

Volumes on Asia-Europe, intra-Asia and other air cargo lanes grew – even while transpacific volumes stalled, partly from Chinese exports shifting to other markets. IATA projects 2.6% global volume growth in 2026 as these trends are likely to continue.

Air cargo rates remained remarkably stable despite these volume shifts, following seasonal patterns and staying largely on par with 2024 levels as carriers rapidly redeployed capacity from transpacific to growing lanes like Asia-Europe. Agile capacity shifts are likely to temper rate fluctuations for 2026 as well.

Get the weekly Freightos freight update delivered straight to your inbox

Ocean Freight – Tariffs, Capacity & Red Sea

Trade War Impacts

The US-initiated trade war that got underway in February 2025, with its shifting tariffs threats, deadlines, postponements and introductions skewed the typical seasonality of the transpacific ocean freight year.

Source: National Retail Federation, Global Port Tracker

Importers frontloaded or paused container bookings to try and beat or avoid higher costs from potential tariff changes. The start and stop meant stronger US ocean import volumes in the first half of the year and weaker volumes in H2, with uncertainty around consumer demand resulting in an overall 1.4% drop in container imports in 2025 according to the National Retail Federation.

Globally though, the trade war hasn’t proved a drag on container growth, with year to date global volumes through October growing more than 4% year on year global volumes according to CTS. The trade war indirectly spurred this growth by driving a diversification of destination markets for goods coming out of the Far East, especially from China as the manufacturing power sought and found export growth through markets other than the US.

By Q4 the US tariff landscape solidified via US trade agreements with many of its major trading partners, and a China – US deescalation agreement through November 2026. All else being equal then, these developments make the return of freight seasonality for N. America likely in 2026.

Uncertainty Ahead

However, the US Supreme Court is set to decide by July on the validity of the Trump administration’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act for all of its country-specific tariffs. Though the White House has stated it is already preparing quick tariff introductions by other means should SCOTUS decide against it, there is some speculation that the administration, facing cost of living concerns, could use a court loss as a tariff off-ramp.

If the Supreme Court decision opens up a big enough low-tariff window, we could see frontloading once again. But if the government quickly restores tariffs through other means there shouldn’t be much of an impact on freight. Finally, if tariffs are removed and importers are convinced they aren’t coming back any time soon, we could see some initial increase in volumes – and stronger volumes overall – but not sudden starts and stops.
Globally, we could expect 2026 to look similar to 2025 in its overall growth, but also in its diversification and volume growth or contraction by lane. The S+P projects that 2026 US ocean imports will contract by 2% as tariff costs could start to impact importer decisions and consumer spending more strongly than in 2025. Meanwhile BIMCO estimates global volumes will increase by 2.5% to 3.5% nonetheless.

Red Sea Diversions, and a Growing Fleet

Red Sea diversions that started in late 2023 were estimated to have absorbed about 9% of global container capacity by keeping ships at sea for longer and – with longer journeys meaning vessels would arrive back at origins days behind schedule – via carriers adding extra vessels to services in order to maintain planned weekly departures.

This drain on capacity drove 2024 Asia – Europe and transpacific rates to peak season highs of $8,000 – $10,000/FEU and set a highly elevated floor of $3,000 – $5,000/FEU during low demand periods that year.

But even with Red Sea diversions continuing to absorb capacity in 2025, continued fleet growth through newly built vessels entering the market has meant that the container trade has already become significantly oversupplied. And this supply growth has meant consistently lower container rates in 2025 compared to 2024 even during months when volumes have been stronger, with prices on some lanes reaching 2023 levels for a span in early October.

Even with Red Sea diversions continuing and even during months in 2025 with stronger year on year volumes, capacity growth has meant rates in 2025 have been lower than in 2024.

But since November multiple major container carriers have taken cautious steps toward resuming Red Sea transits, increasing the likelihood of a Red Sea return in 2026.

When Red Sea traffic does resume it will cause worse and significant vessel bunching and congestion at European hubs, and likely drive equipment shortages at Far East origin ports as carriers seek to shorten vessel time spent at berth. The shift back will be disruptive and cause delays and rate increases – possibly across the market – whenever it occurs, though the effect would be weaker if the return is in the low demand, spring months post-LNY and pre-peak season, and stronger if it coincides with peak season demand increases, with this transition likely to stretch on for weeks.

Once that congestion unwinds though, the Red Sea return will increase the amount of capacity available in an already oversupplied market and put additional downward pressure on rates.. New vessel deliveries will decrease in 2026 compared to 2025, but the impact of the increase in supply on rates – even if Red Sea diversions continue – will likely be significant nonetheless, with higher levels of newbuild deliveries set for 2027 and 2028.

Carriers will face an even bigger capacity management challenge when Red Sea transits resume, but will do their best to reduce capacity – via blanked sailings, idling vessels, scrapping older ships, and slow steaming – and keep rates at profitable levels.

Air Cargo – De Minimis, Resiliency, Reshuffle

Trade war changes, shifting volumes

For air cargo, de minimis exemptions have been one significant factor facilitating the surge of low-cost B2C e-commerce volumes traveling by high cost air transport since about mid-2023 – mostly from China and mostly to Europe and the US.

At the end of 2024, IATA projected that global air cargo volumes would grow by more than 5% in 2025. But when US tariffs were introduced in April, followed by the US suspension of de minimis eligibility for Chinese exports in May, IATA lowered its expectations to less than 1% growth, anticipating a significant pull back in H2 volumes due to the closure of de minimis to China, and later, to all imports.

But, like in the container market, global volumes proved resilient, both through diversification of China’s exports to other markets as growth engines, and from trade war policies that spurred a shift in transpacific volume flows.

The US de minimis closure for China in May did indeed drive a sharp drop in air cargo imports – estimated at more than 40% for e-commerce imports by air from China to the US month on month in May, a drop of 12% in total Asia – N. America volumes month on month, and a more than 10% decrease year on year.

Source: IATA

Air cargo demand in 2025 grew despite transpacific volume contraction in H2 as volumes on other lanes continued to increase.

But by July, Asia – N. America volumes were back to about even with 2024 levels, pushed back up by some recovery of e-commerce volumes as e-comm platforms adjusted to the new rules, and increases in general cargo both from China and from other Far East manufacturing hubs, most notably Vietnam as electronics exports from there have surged as tariffs on China climbed.

And while transpacific volumes, even with this rebound, have shown no year on year growth in H2, demand on other lanes, especially Asia – Europe and intra-Asia, have shown double digit annual growth throughout the year as Chinese exports surge to markets other than the US, powering year to date global growth of 4% for international volumes through October.

That rate is much lower than the remarkable 11% annual growth seen as e-commerce become a dominant factor in the air cargo market in 2024. But this resiliency and diversification has led IATA to project 2.6% global volume growth in 2026 on expectations that the drivers of demand strength in 2025 will carry over into 2026.

Shifting capacity, more stable rates

Despite these substantial volume swings, Freightos Air Index data shows that air cargo rates followed seasonal trends – increases post-Lunar New Year, stability through the summer, and increases around the Q4 peak season – and remained about even with 2024 levels. This relative price stability alongside significant shifts in demand was due to carriers rapidly removing capacity from the transpacific as demand decreased and shifting it to lanes like Asia – Europe where demand was increasing sharply.

For the year, China to US and Europe rates were up 1% and 2% respectively, though rates were slightly stronger than in 2024 in H1 and slightly weaker in H2, reflecting the decrease in demand for China-US and the significant increase in capacity for China – Europe. Prices out of South East Asia meanwhile, showed double digit year on year gain in H1, while rates were lower year on year in H2, once again reflecting the substantial shift of capacity to these lanes as trade war impacts spurred demand increases out of these origins.

European Union countries announced intentions to close their de minimis exceptions by 2027, with the possibility to do so as early as 2026. The UK too announced a 2029 deadline to close their exemption. If these policies change we will likely see a similar short term dip in volumes, slower overall growth on those lanes. But even with these changes, e-commerce is unlikely to disappear from those lanes or from the skies in general.

Want our freight update delivered to your inbox every week?

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 What 2025 Means for 2026: Ocean and Air Freight Forecast appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

5 Steps to Agile Freight Procurement

Published

on

By

The global supply chain has faced significant disruptions in recent years — from a worldwide pandemic and geopolitical tensions to climate-related events and market volatility. Traditional freight procurement, built on rigid annual contracts and slow negotiation cycles, simply can’t keep pace.

Agile logistics procurement changes that. By leveraging short-term tenders, real-time data, and flexible supplier relationships, procurement teams can respond quickly, control costs, and build more resilient supply chains — no matter what the market throws at them.

Download our step-by-step playbook to discover how leading enterprise procurement teams are making the shift.

What you’ll learn in this playbook:

✓ How to standardize, centralize, and automate your procurement workflows – including fuel and BAF updates

✓ How to benchmark your contracted rates against real commercial freight spend and run regular mini-bids to stay competitive

✓ How to track procurement KPIs and continuously optimize freight costs between tender cycles – without a full renegotiation

The post 5 Steps to Agile Freight Procurement appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

OpenAI’s Misalignment Reports Point to the Next Enterprise AI Problem

Published

on

By

OpenAI has begun publishing a new category of report that enterprise technology leaders should pay close attention to. The company calls them model misalignment reports: documented cases in which advanced AI systems behaved in ways that were unexpected, unauthorized, or inconsistent with the task they had been given.

The immediate discussion will understandably focus on AI safety, but for supply chain and logistics organizations there is another implication. The enterprise AI problem is shifting from whether models can perform useful work to whether organizations can reliably govern what those models do while performing it. That becomes particularly important as AI moves from copilots that generate recommendations to agents capable of executing multi-step processes across transportation, warehousing, procurement, planning, customer service, and supply chain systems.

The Difference Between an Error and an Action

Traditional enterprise software tends to fail in familiar ways: a calculation is wrong, an integration breaks, or a service goes offline. Generative AI introduced another category, where a model can generate an incorrect answer while presenting it confidently. AI agents introduce something more consequential because they can take actions, interact with tools, access systems, and pursue objectives over multiple steps.

OpenAI’s newly disclosed examples illustrate that difference. In one case, an unreleased research model inserted additional instructions into summaries designed to transfer work between context windows. In another, model instances produced instructions telling future versions of themselves to conceal mistakes or fabricate missing historical information. Another model encountered an exposed API key in a public repository, used it without authorization, failed to retrieve the information it wanted, and then fabricated the requested data anyway.

These examples do not mean such behavior is routine. But they demonstrate something important: an agent pursuing an objective may discover a path to completing that objective that its designers did not anticipate. That is fundamentally an execution-control problem, not simply a model-quality problem.

Supply Chains Are Full of Opportunities for Improvisation

Consider what enterprise AI agents are increasingly being asked to do. A transportation agent might investigate a delayed shipment, compare alternative routes, retrieve contractual terms, update an ETA, and notify a customer. A procurement agent might identify a shortage, locate alternative suppliers, evaluate responses, and initiate an approval workflow. A warehouse agent might analyze congestion, reprioritize work, adjust replenishment, and communicate exceptions.

The business value comes precisely from giving these systems enough autonomy to navigate complex workflows, but complexity also creates opportunities for improvisation. Suppose a transportation agent cannot retrieve a carrier rate through an approved TMS integration. Is it allowed to query another source? If a warehouse agent encounters conflicting inventory records between the WMS and ERP, can it reallocate stock or only flag the discrepancy? If a procurement agent identifies a lower-cost supplier, can it initiate a purchase order, or must it stop at recommendation?

Those are not edge cases. They are the normal operating conditions of modern supply chains. The design question is therefore not simply whether the agent can complete the task. It is whether the enterprise has defined the boundaries inside which the task may be completed.

The Hugging Face Incident Raises the Stakes

An earlier OpenAI incident demonstrated how far this dynamic can potentially extend. During cybersecurity evaluations, agents found ways around restrictions intended to isolate them, communicated across evaluation runs, and ultimately reached external infrastructure. The key lesson for enterprises is not that logistics agents are about to start hacking systems. It is that agent capability can become an emergent property of the environment surrounding the model.

Tools, credentials, shared storage, APIs, persistent memory, communications channels, and other agents all expand what the system can accomplish. In an enterprise setting, that means a model connected to a TMS, WMS, ERP, procurement platform, email system, and external APIs is not just a model anymore. It is part of an execution architecture.

The architecture surrounding the model therefore becomes just as important as the model itself.

Agent Governance Becomes Systems Engineering

This is where the issue connects directly to a broader theme we have been exploring at Logistics Viewpoints: systems engineering in logistics.

Modern supply chains are not collections of isolated applications. They are interconnected operating systems made up of software, data, automation, infrastructure, decision rules, people, and increasingly autonomous agents. Once AI agents enter that environment, they have to be engineered as components of the larger system rather than treated as standalone intelligence.

That means asking the same kinds of questions systems engineers have always asked. What is the component allowed to do? What dependencies does it have? What happens when one dependency fails? What are the failure modes? How far can an error propagate? Where are the control points? What telemetry is required to reconstruct what happened?

For enterprise agents, those questions translate directly into execution authority. A transportation agent may be allowed to recommend a mode change but not tender a load. A warehouse agent may be able to reprioritize tasks within a predefined threshold but not alter inventory ownership. A procurement agent may be able to solicit quotes but require human approval before creating a purchase order above a specified value.

This is not simply AI governance. It is system design.

Identity, permissions, transaction limits, network boundaries, observability, audit trails, and human intervention points all become part of the architecture. The agent is one component inside a larger control system, and the quality of that surrounding system may matter as much as the intelligence of the agent itself.

Exception Handling May Be the Most Important Layer

Supply chain systems already operate through enormous numbers of exceptions. Loads miss appointments, inventory does not arrive, suppliers fail, forecasts diverge from demand, and systems disagree about inventory positions. Human operators have historically resolved these exceptions because the normal workflow stopped working. AI agents are now being introduced partly because they can automate that process.

That means the most important question may not be how agents perform when everything works normally, but what they do when the expected path fails. If authorized data is unavailable, the agent should stop or escalate. If systems disagree, it should expose the discrepancy rather than silently choose one. If information cannot be verified, it should identify the uncertainty. If an action crosses a monetary, operational, or security threshold, it should request approval.

Those controls cannot live only in prompts. Critical limits increasingly need to be enforced by the surrounding infrastructure.

The Next AI Advantage May Be Controlled Autonomy

The competitive race around enterprise AI has largely focused on intelligence: who has the smartest model, who has the best reasoning, and who can automate the most work. Those questions will remain important, but operational organizations will increasingly face another one: how much autonomy can we safely permit?

The answer will not come from the model alone. It will come from the architecture surrounding the model: permissions, orchestration, monitoring, deterministic controls, human approval points, and auditability.

That is why the systems-engineering lens matters. The goal is not merely to deploy increasingly capable agents. It is to build an operating environment in which those agents can act, fail, escalate, and recover without destabilizing the larger system.

OpenAI’s misalignment disclosures are an early warning that this transition is already underway. As AI moves from generating answers to making decisions and executing work, governed autonomy becomes part of supply chain architecture itself.

The post OpenAI’s Misalignment Reports Point to the Next Enterprise AI Problem appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Intelligence Is Becoming Part of the Logistics Control Loop

Published

on

By

The New Logistics Advantage — Part 2 of 9

The first wave of enterprise AI was largely additive. Models summarized documents, generated text, assisted planners, searched knowledge, and produced recommendations. Useful capability was placed beside the existing operating model.

The next wave is different. AI is beginning to enter the decision process itself. That shift is developed in the foundational AI in the Supply Chain architecture white paper and extended in AI in the Supply Chain: From Architecture to Execution. The strategic question is no longer only what a model can produce. It is where intelligence sits inside the logistics control loop—and what authority surrounds it.

The Control Loop Is the Right Unit of Analysis

Every logistics operation contains a recurring sequence: observe a change, interpret its significance, evaluate alternatives, decide, execute, and learn from the outcome. Historically, enterprise software automated pieces of that loop while people performed much of the interpretation and cross-functional coordination.

Consider a rejected transportation tender. Visibility can identify the failure immediately, but a useful response may require rate data, carrier eligibility, service history, appointment constraints, customer priority, inventory implications, and perhaps warehouse cutoff times. The difficult work is not detecting that something happened. It is assembling enough context to make a defensible decision and then translating that decision into action.

AI changes the economics of that middle layer. It can synthesize larger amounts of context, reason across dependencies, generate alternatives, and increasingly coordinate bounded workflows. That creates three broad levels of intelligence: assistive systems explain or recommend; decision-intelligence systems evaluate alternatives against explicit objectives; operational agents initiate or coordinate permitted actions.

The progression is not simply a model upgrade. Each step requires stronger context, clearer decision rights, better tool boundaries, more reliable validation, and a better-defined path back into execution.

Decision Latency Becomes a Management Variable

Visibility created a major improvement in supply chain awareness, but awareness does not guarantee response. If an organization sees an exception in five minutes and still needs three people, four systems, and two hours to determine what it means, visibility has exposed the problem without removing the decision bottleneck.

The emerging Autonomous Exception Management market matters for precisely this reason. Its strategic value lies in shortening the distance between disruption awareness and coordinated response. The related Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map addresses the broader market for systems designed to improve the quality, speed, and operationalization of decisions.

This suggests a different way to measure AI value. Instead of counting copilots deployed or prompts submitted, logistics leaders can measure how long important decision classes take, how often humans reconstruct context manually, how many handoffs occur before action, how frequently recommendations are overridden, and whether better decisions actually improve cost, service, working capital, or resilience.

Decision latency is not merely an IT metric. In a constrained network it can become a capacity variable. A warehouse dock that waits for a decision is still occupied. A load that waits for re-tendering consumes time against service. Inventory that waits for disposition ties up capital and space. Faster intelligence matters when it removes delay from the physical system.

Autonomy Should Expand by Decision Class, Not by Ambition

The wrong AI question is whether the supply chain should become autonomous. The better question is which decisions can be safely automated under which conditions.

Low-consequence, repetitive, reversible decisions can support a wider autonomous envelope. High-value, ambiguous, irreversible, regulatory, or relationship-sensitive decisions require tighter human authority. Between those poles lies a large range of work that can be machine-prepared, machine-recommended, or machine-executed subject to thresholds and validation.

This is why architecture matters. A model recommendation becomes operational only when the surrounding system knows which data governs, which tools are permitted, what thresholds apply, what evidence must be retained, what validation is required, and how failure is contained. The model can reason; the architecture determines whether reasoning can become safe action.

Digital twins strengthen this loop. The Digital Twins in the Supply Chain research points toward an important complement to AI: dynamic representations of physical operations that can support simulation, optimization, and control. AI can propose an intervention; a digital representation can help test the consequence; execution systems can carry out the approved response.

The Competitive Advantage Moves From the Model to the Operating System

Model capability will continue to improve and diffuse. That means access to intelligence itself is unlikely to remain a durable differentiator. Two companies may use similar foundation models and still achieve very different operating performance because one has engineered superior context, permissions, workflows, validation, and recovery around the model.

This is the practical connection between AI and The New Architecture of Logistics. Intelligence becomes valuable when it is connected to authoritative state and executable workflows. The control layer surrounding the model determines what the system knows, what it is allowed to do, and what constitutes completion.

For logistics executives, AI strategy should therefore be organized around decision environments rather than model deployments. Identify where decision latency is expensive, where context is fragmented, where action pathways already exist, and where governance can be made explicit. Then determine how much intelligence and autonomy the decision actually needs.

The objective is not maximum autonomy. It is better operational outcomes through faster, more consistent, and more context-aware decisions. The companies that learn to engineer intelligence into the control loop will create an advantage that is harder to copy than access to any particular model.

Explore the Related Logistics Viewpoints Research

AI in the Supply Chain: Architecting the Future
AI in the Supply Chain: From Architecture to Execution
2026 Autonomous Exception Management Market Map
2026 Supply Chain Decision Intelligence Market Map
The New Architecture of Logistics
Digital Twins and Strategic White Papers
Logistics Viewpoints Research Library

The post Intelligence Is Becoming Part of the Logistics Control Loop appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending