Connect with us

Non classé

Container Shipping Overcapacity & Rate Outlook 2026

Published

on

Container Shipping Overcapacity & Rate Outlook 2026

Published: January 27, 2026

Blog

Container freight is poised for a downcycle – putting downward pressure on rates and carrier revenue – starting in 2026 as an unprecedented wave of new vessel capacity enters the market. But despite signs of overcapacity in 2025, carriers continue ordering new vessels and holding onto older ships.

In a recent Freightos market update webinar, Parash Jain, Managing Director, Global Head of Transport & Logistics Research at HSBC shared his analysis of this state of affairs: This seemingly counterintuitive strategy reflects carrier lessons learned from recent disruptions and longer-term strategic positioning, at the cost of rate and revenue challenges for carriers in the coming years.

Key Takeaways

There’s a reason vessels aren’t being retired. Despite overcapacity concerns, carriers are maintaining older vessels as insurance against unpredictable disruptions, the “known unknowns” of global shipping – like COVID and the Red Sea crisis –- for which available capacity has helped carriers keep containers moving and maximize volumes and revenue.

Pandemic-era profits have both allowed carriers to pay down vessel debt – reducing pressure to scrap ships – and enabled them to prepare for the future now via newbuilds

Individual carriers have to make vessel purchase decisions based on their own needs and strategies, not on the aggregate capacity level in the market – likewise contributing to vessel order growth despite industry overcapacity

Expect a cyclical pattern of sharp rate dips followed by periods of recovery through capacity management in the near term, though overall rate levels will likely trend lower than 2025 through the downcycle. In the long-term, the larger fleets will make the market more resilient (should carriers choose to activate them when the going gets tough).

An oversupplied market: Trends in overcapacity

One of the biggest factors likely to impact container rates in 2026 is the growing global fleet.

Since 2021, carriers have been plowing their record profits earned from record revenues during the pandemic years into a record number of orders for new vessels – some of which started being delivered in 2023. According to S+P, an estimated ten million TEU of container ship capacity – the size of a third of the current active fleet – is now on order and will be delivered over the next few years.

Source: S+P in JOC.com

As demand eased post-pandemic and new vessels started being delivered, Freightos Baltic Index spot rates fell sharply with transpacific pricing to the West Coast (FBX01) dipping below $1,000/FEU in March of 2023. When the Red Sea crisis began however, the longer sailing times for Asia – Europe voyages and the extra vessels deployed to maintain departure schedules on these lanes absorbed that excess capacity, pushing freight rates up to their highest levels since COVID.

But new vessels continued to enter the market in 2024 and 2025. And even with Red Sea diversions continuing throughout 2025, the growing supply pushed East – West long haul rates down by 45% year on year, with transpacific rates slipping to $1,400/FEU in October 2025.

Check out our Container Bytes podcast for a bitsize weekly freight update

Driving a Downcycle

The current orderbook size means the fleet will continue to grow significantly over the coming few years, such that even with demand growth, most observers project a container market downcycle: capacity is expected to outpace volumes putting persistent downward pressure on freight rates, reducing carrier revenues and even spurring losses.

Carriers maintain that they will pull all the capacity management levers – blanked sailings, idled vessels, service suspensions, slow steaming and scrapping – to balance supply with demand and minimize or avoid periods of losses. But despite the current signs of overcapacity, the current idle fleet is minimal and very few older ships have been scrapped. What’s more, carriers continue to order more vessels to join the already overstocked fleet.

Why no scrapping? The “Known Unknown”

Lessons learned and profits earned in the last few years may be motivating carriers to hold on to older ships even at the risk of oversupply.

More Capacity for Better Resilience

Though it may not have seemed that way as delays mounted and freight rates spiked, the slack capacity available during the pandemic did help carriers keep containers moving. Post-COVID, as noted above, overcapacity was one factor to loss making rates at times in 2023. But by December, carriers were diverting away from the Red Sea, and vessels that had just been considered oversupply were now key to carriers (mostly) maintaining departure schedules despite the much longer voyages. Available capacity was key to helping shippers keep their orders coming while also allowing carriers to maximize volumes and revenues even with the disruption.

Want freight insights direct to your inbox?

Subscribe to the Freightos weekly freight update

And the list of examples of disruptions for which having excess capacity available has helped carriers adjust –- the Russia-Ukraine war, Panama Canal drought, Baltimore bridge collapse, port strikes, and tariff frontloading – since the pandemic is a long one. This list makes a compelling argument that the next unpredictable disruption – the “known unknown” – is out there, and makes keeping older, extra vessels active despite the overcapacity risk make sense.

Pandemic-era carrier profits are also playing a part in the decision not to scrap older vessels. In previous downcycles, carriers have been incentivized to scrap vessels and use the proceeds to pay down debt or cover losses from sinking revenues. This time though, carriers have already used those record profits to pay down almost all debt on their vessels over the last few years and still have cash on hand to cover losses if they arise.

But why are more container ships on the orderbooks in 2026?

The above factors make a case for keeping paid off vessels in circulation, but if these also increase the risk of overcapacity, why are carriers continuing to order vessels after the 2021 to 2024 spending spree?

Because even if the industry is oversupplied, individual carriers can’t make ordering decisions from a market perspective. One carrier’s capacity gain doesn’t address another’s needs. So one investing in new vessels doesn’t mean a competitor won’t continue to order too, even if in the aggregate it pushes the market (further) into oversupply.

Different carriers have had different fleet renewal strategies and – especially given the low rate of new vessels ordered from 2016 to 2020 – some carriers are still playing catch up in a market where shipyard capacity is limited and vessels take a long time to build. Finally, the COVID profits mean carriers have the opportunity now to invest in new, more efficient and lower carbon ships and prepare for the next twenty-five years, even if it means contributing to a downcycle.

Can capacity management prevent downcycle losses?

Much to the surprise of long time observers, in recent years carriers have demonstrated the ability to manage capacity effectively and keep rates up in times of demand collapses – first during the initial volume drop in the first months of the pandemic, and more recently during the month and a half in 2025 when US tariffs on China stood at 145%.

If carriers kept rates level when demand evaporated, why can’t they do the same when capacity grows?

When demand collapses were abrupt, like in 2020 and 2025, carriers were able to make a proportionate response – in many cases just simply keeping vessels wherever they were at the time – and keep rates level.

But when the imbalance is structural, gradual and sustained – like in a supply-drive downcycle – the process of rebalancing can be much more challenging and prolonged. As the examples of the supply-driven rate slides in 2023 and late Q3 through October of 2025 show, it is harder to maintain that discipline when the drivers are a trend instead of a shock. And since incremental costs of taking on additional containers decrease once a vessel is already mostly booked, the economics of container shipping can also sometimes help push carriers into low or loss making rate environments.

But both instances of extremely low spot rates in 2023 and 2025 were followed by periods of rate recovery through capacity reductions even as demand continued to ease, and further price increases as seasonal demand picked up.

This pattern is likely the one we’ll see repeated over the coming years as capacity continues to grow: overall downward pressure on rates with levels likely lower than in 2025, and periods of very low spot prices followed by rate recoveries via capacity management or increases in demand.

All things being equal, this scenario should be a big driver of rate and revenue levels in the container market until a rebalance of supply and demand spurs the next upcycle.

On to the next known unknown?

But of course, the known unknowns that will shake up this pattern are out there: It is known that carriers – at some point – will resume Red Sea transits, which will at first trigger congestion that will absorb capacity, but then release even more supply once the delays unwind, increasing the overcapacity challenge. And geopolitical disruptions that could close shipping lanes, or sudden trade war shifts that could drive sudden demand spikes (or collapses) are all too plausible.

If these or other disruptions arise in the next few years, shippers will lament higher prices, but also be grateful that carriers have the available capacity to keep containers moving nonetheless.

You can catch our Global Freight Outlook webinar every month, or sign up for our weekly international freight update, here.

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 Container Shipping Overcapacity & Rate Outlook 2026 appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

India–U.S. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change

Published

on

By

India–u.s. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change

The announcement by Donald Trump and Narendra Modi of an India–U.S. “trade deal” has drawn immediate attention from global markets. From a supply chain and logistics perspective, however, the more important observation is not the scale of the claims, but the lack of formal detail required for execution.

At this stage, what exists is a political statement rather than a completed trade agreement. For companies managing sourcing, manufacturing, transportation, and compliance across India–U.S. trade lanes, uncertainty remains the defining condition.

What Has Been Announced So Far

Based on public statements from the U.S. administration and reporting by CNBC and Al Jazeera, several points have been asserted:

U.S. tariffs on Indian goods would be reduced from an effective 50 percent to 18 percent

India would reduce tariffs and non tariff barriers on U.S. goods, potentially to zero

India would stop purchasing Russian oil and increase energy purchases from the United States

India would significantly increase purchases of U.S. goods across energy, agriculture, technology, and industrial sectors

Statements from the Indian government have been more limited. New Delhi confirmed that U.S. tariffs on Indian exports would be reduced to 18 percent, but it did not publicly confirm commitments related to Russian oil, agricultural market access, or large scale procurement from U.S. suppliers.

This divergence matters. In supply chain planning, commitments only become relevant when they are documented, scoped, and enforceable.

Why This Is Not Yet a Trade Agreement

From an operational standpoint, the announcement lacks several elements required to support planning and execution:

No published tariff schedules by HS code

No clarification on rules of origin

No definition of non tariff barrier reductions

No implementation timelines

No enforcement or dispute resolution mechanisms

Without these components, companies cannot reliably model landed cost, supplier risk, or network design changes.

By comparison, India’s recently announced trade agreement with the European Union includes detailed provisions covering market access, regulatory alignment, and investment protections. Those provisions are what allow supply chain leaders to translate trade policy into operational decisions. The U.S. announcement does not yet meet that threshold.

Implications for Supply Chains

Tariff Reduction Could Be Material if Formalized

An 18 percent tariff rate would improve India’s competitive position relative to regional peers such as Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. If implemented and sustained, this could support incremental sourcing from India in sectors such as textiles, pharmaceuticals, and light manufacturing.

For now, however, this remains a scenario rather than a planning assumption.

Energy Commitments Are the Largest Unknown

The claim that India would halt purchases of Russian oil has significant implications across energy, chemical, and manufacturing supply chains. Russian crude has been a key input for Indian refineries and downstream industrial production.

A shift away from that supply would affect energy input costs, tanker routing, port utilization, and U.S.–India crude and LNG trade volumes. None of these impacts can be assessed with confidence without confirmation from Indian regulators and implementing agencies.

Agriculture Remains Politically and Operationally Sensitive

U.S. officials have suggested expanded access for American agricultural exports. Historically, agriculture has been one of the most protected and politically sensitive sectors in India.

Any meaningful liberalization would raise questions around cold chain capacity, port infrastructure, domestic political resistance, and regulatory compliance. These factors introduce execution risk that supply chain leaders should consider carefully.

Compliance and Digital Trade Issues Are Unresolved

Several areas remain undefined:

Whether India will adjust pharmaceutical patent protections

Whether U.S. technology firms will receive exemptions from digital services taxes

Whether labor and environmental standards will be linked to market access

Each of these issues influences sourcing strategies, contract terms, and long term cost structures.

Practical Guidance for Supply Chain Leaders

Until formal documentation is released, a measured approach is warranted:

Avoid making structural network changes based on political announcements

Model tariff exposure using multiple scenarios rather than a single assumed outcome

Monitor customs and regulatory guidance rather than headline statements

Assess exposure to potential energy cost changes in Indian operations

Track implementation of the India–EU agreement as a near term reference point

Bottom Line

This announcement suggests a potential shift in the direction of India–U.S. trade relations, but it does not yet provide the clarity required for operational decision making.

For now, it creates strategic optionality rather than executable change.

Until tariff schedules, regulatory commitments, and enforcement mechanisms are formally published, supply chain and logistics leaders should treat this development as informational rather than actionable. In trade, execution begins only when the documentation exists.

The post India–U.S. Trade Announcement Creates Strategic Options, Not Executable Change appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update

Published

on

By

Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Published: February 3, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) decreased 10% to $2,418/FEU.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) decreased 2% to $3,859/FEU.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) decreased 5% to $2,779/FEU.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) decreased 5% to $4,179/FEU.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices increased 8% to $6.74/kg.

China – N. Europe weekly prices decreased 4% to $3.44/kg.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices increased 10% to $2.53/kg.

Analysis

Winter weather is complicating logistics on both sides of the Atlantic. Affected areas in the US, especially the southeast and southern midwest are still recovering from last week’s major storm and cold.

Storms in the North Atlantic slowed vessel traffic and disrupted or shutdown operations at several container ports across Western Europe and into the Mediterranean late last week. Transits resumed and West Med ports restarted operations earlier this week, but the disruptions have already caused significant delays, and weather is expected to worsen again mid-week.

The resulting delays and disruptions could increase congestion levels at N. Europe ports, but ocean rates from Asia to both N. Europe and the Mediterranean nonetheless dipped 5% last week as the pre-Lunar New Year rush comes to an end. Daily rates this week are sliding further with prices to N. Europe now down to about $2,600/FEU and $3,800/FEU to the Mediterranean – from respective highs of $3,000/FEU and $4,900/FEU in January.

Transpacific rates likewise slipped last week as LNY nears, with West Coast prices easing 10% to about $2,400/FEU and East Coast rates down 5% to $3,850/FEU. West Coast daily prices have continued to slide so far this week, with rates dropping to almost $1,900/FEU as of Monday, a level last seen in mid-December.

Prices across these lanes are significantly lower than this time last year due partly to fleet growth. ONE identified overcapacity as one driver of Q3 losses last year, with lower volumes due to trade war frontloading the other culprit.

And trade war uncertainty has persisted into 2026.

India – US container volumes have slumped since August when the US introduced 50% tariffs on many Indian exports. Just this week though, the US and India announced a breakthrough in negotiations that will lower tariffs to 18% in exchange for a reduction in India’s Russian oil purchases among other commitments. President Trump has yet to sign an executive order lowering tariffs, and the sides have not released details of the agreement, but once implemented, container demand is expected to rebound on this lane.

Recent steps in the other direction include Trump issuing an executive order that enables the US to impose tariffs on countries that sell oil to Cuba, and threatening tariffs and other punitive steps targeting Canada’s aviation manufacturing.

The recent volatility of and increasing barriers to trade with the US since Trump took office last year are major drivers of the warmer relations and increased and diversified trade developing between other major economies. The EU signed a major free trade agreement with India last week just after finalizing a deal with a group of South American countries, and other countries like the UK are exploring improved ties with China as well.

In a final recent geopolitical development, Panama’s Supreme Court nullified Hutchinson Port rights to operate its terminals at either end of the Panama Canal. The Hong Kong company was in stalled negotiations to sell those ports following Trump’s objection to a China-related presence in the canal. Maersk’s APMTP was appointed to take over operations in the interim.

In air cargo, pre-LNY demand may be one factor in China-US rates continuing to rebound to $6.74/kg last week from about $5.50/kg in early January. Post the new year slump, South East Asia – US prices are climbing as well, up to almost $5.00/kg last week from $4.00/kg just a few weeks ago.

China – Europe rates dipped 4% to $3.44/kg last week, with SEA – Europe prices up 7% to more than $3.20/kg, and transatlantic rates up 10% to more than $2.50/kg, a level 25% higher than early this year.

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 Winter weather challenges, trade deals and more tariff threats – February 3, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Microsoft and the Operationalization of AI: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding with Execution Reality

Published

on

By

Microsoft And The Operationalization Of Ai: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding With Execution Reality

Microsoft has positioned itself as one of the central platforms for enterprise AI. Through Azure, Copilot, Fabric, and a rapidly expanding ecosystem of AI services, the company is not merely offering tools, it is proposing an operating model for how intelligence should be embedded across enterprise workflows.

For supply chain and logistics leaders, the significance of Microsoft’s strategy is less about individual features and more about how platform decisions increasingly shape where AI lives, how it is governed, and which decisions it ultimately influences.

From Cloud Infrastructure to Operating Layer

Historically, Microsoft’s role in supply chain technology centered on infrastructure and productivity software. Azure provided scalable compute and storage, while Office and collaboration tools supported planning and coordination. That boundary has shifted.

Microsoft is now positioning AI as a horizontal operating layer that spans data management, analytics, decision support, and execution. Azure AI services, Microsoft Fabric, and Copilot are designed to work together, reducing friction between data ingestion, model development, and business consumption.

The implication for operations leaders is subtle but important: AI is no longer something added to systems; it is increasingly embedded into the platforms those systems rely on.

Copilot and the Question of Decision Proximity

Copilot has become a focal point of Microsoft’s AI narrative. Positioned as an assistive layer across applications, Copilot aims to surface insights, generate recommendations, and automate routine tasks.

For supply chain use cases, the key question is not whether Copilot can generate answers, but where those answers appear in the decision chain. Insights delivered inside productivity tools can improve awareness and coordination, but operational value depends on whether recommendations are connected to execution systems.

This highlights a broader pattern: AI that remains advisory improves efficiency; AI that is embedded into workflows influences outcomes. Microsoft’s challenge is bridging that gap consistently across heterogeneous enterprise environments.

Microsoft Fabric and the Data Foundation Problem

Microsoft Fabric represents an attempt to simplify and unify the enterprise data landscape. By combining data engineering, analytics, and governance into a single platform, Microsoft is addressing one of the most persistent barriers to AI adoption: fragmented and inconsistent data.

For supply chain organizations, Fabric’s value lies in its potential to standardize event data across planning, execution, and visibility systems. However, unification does not eliminate the need for data discipline. Event quality, latency, and ownership remain operational issues, not platform features.

Fabric reduces friction, but it does not resolve governance by itself.

Integration with Existing Enterprise Systems

Microsoft’s AI strategy assumes coexistence with existing ERP, WMS, TMS, and planning platforms. Integration, rather than replacement, is the dominant pattern.

This creates both opportunity and risk. On one hand, Microsoft can act as a connective tissue across systems that were never designed to work together. On the other, loosely coupled integration increases dependence on interface stability and data consistency.

In execution-heavy environments, even small integration failures can cascade quickly. As AI becomes more embedded, integration reliability becomes a strategic concern.

Where AI Is Delivering Value, and Where It Isn’t

AI deployments tend to deliver value fastest in areas such as demand sensing, scenario analysis, reporting automation, and exception identification. These use cases align well with Microsoft’s strengths in analytics, collaboration, and scalable infrastructure.

Where value is harder to realize is in autonomous execution. Closed-loop decision-making that directly triggers operational action requires tighter coupling with execution systems and clearer decision ownership.

This reinforces a recurring theme: platform AI accelerates insight, but execution still depends on operating model design.

Constraints That Still Apply

Despite the breadth of Microsoft’s AI portfolio, familiar constraints remain. Data quality, security, compliance, and organizational readiness continue to limit outcomes. AI platforms do not eliminate the need for process clarity or decision accountability.

In some cases, the ease of deploying AI services can outpace an organization’s ability to absorb them operationally. This creates a risk of insight saturation without action.

Why Microsoft Matters to Supply Chain Leaders

Microsoft’s relevance lies in its ability to shape the default environment in which enterprise AI operates. Platform decisions made today influence data architectures, governance models, and user expectations for years.

For supply chain leaders, the key takeaway is not to adopt Microsoft’s AI stack wholesale, but to understand how platform-level AI affects where intelligence sits, how it flows, and who ultimately acts on it.

The next phase of AI adoption will not be defined solely by model performance. It will be defined by how effectively platforms like Microsoft’s translate intelligence into operational decisions under real-world constraints.

The post Microsoft and the Operationalization of AI: Why Platform Strategy Is Colliding with Execution Reality appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending