Connect with us

Non classé

Iran war pushing air rates up, and disrupting ocean – March 4, 2026 Update

Published

on

Iran war pushing air rates up, and disrupting ocean – March 4, 2026 Update

Discover Freightos Enterprise

Published: March 4, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) stayed level.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) stayed level.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) decreased 1%.

Asia-Mediterranean prices(FBX13 Weekly) decreased 2%.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices increased 2%.

China – N. Europe weekly prices increased 7%.

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

Analysis

The US-Israel strikes on Iran and subsequent Iranian retaliation targeting multiple countries in the area since the weekend are driving significant logistics disruptions in the region which could start to be felt more broadly if the conflict stretches on.

Six tanker vessels in or near the Strait of Hormuz came under attack early this week. The strikes de facto closed the waterway by Sunday, though the IRGC only made an official announcement on Monday. President Trump – who also said the US will cut off trade with Spain in response to being denied access to military bases there – stated on social media that the US would facilitate insurance and naval escorts to keep oil tankers moving through the strait, though experts are skeptical of the feasibility of and speed at which these could be provided.

In terms of container shipping, DP World suspended operations at the major container port of Jebel Ali in Dubai, the largest port in the Middle East, after an aerial interception caused a fire there Saturday night but reopened on Monday. Otherwise, ports remain operational, but with the strait closed and the security risks in the region, the major container carriers are diverting vessels away, cancelling sailings and suspending new bookings.

Hapag-Lloyd and MSC suspended bookings out of Persian Gulf ports and from all origins to these ports – including Oman and UAE ports on the Gulf of Oman side of the strait because of their proximity. CMA-CGM stopped accepting all bookings to and from Persian Gulf ports only. Maersk suspended all new reefer bookings to the entire region, and bookings out of India to the gulf because of the short lead time. But for now Maersk is still accepting general bookings from the Far East, possibly reflecting optimism that the Strait of Hormuz could reopen relatively soon.

These moves mean delays of uncertain duration for shippers to and from the gulf area. The canceled sailings mean gulf-bound containers are already starting to pile up and threaten container yard congestion in India. They could likewise lead to some backlogs at Far East origins that may start to be felt by other shippers out of those ports if the shutdown lengthens.

Carriers still sailing to the region are diverting containers already in-transit to alternatives in the area with most volumes likely to be offloaded at the major Far East transhipment hubs in Singapore, Malaysia and Sri Lanka. A similar shift to transshipment in the early months of the Red Sea crisis led to significant congestion at these ports in 2024, but with lower volumes and more port capacity this time, congestion should not be as severe.

So for now, the war’s impacts on the container market are mostly local, with Hapag-Lloyd reporting that elsewhere operations continue as normal. But the longer the conflict continues the more disruptive it will be and the more broadly it will be felt.

The Strait of Hormuz handles about 2% or 3% of global container volumes, and estimates of the amount of container capacity from the around 100 container vessels now stranded in the Persian Gulf range from less than or around 1% to as much as 10% of effective capacity. Analysts agree though, that the longer these vessels and equipment are out of circulation, the more likely that reduction will be felt in terms of available capacity and equipment out of the Far East. When traffic through the strait resumes, there will likely be some vessel bunching at these ports too, as ships arrive off schedule. Taken together with climbing fuel costs, these factors could start pushing rates up on non-gulf lanes.

So far rates are only going up for containers directly impacted by the closure. CMA CGM introduced a $3,000/FEU emergency surcharge for containers heading to the gulf, and other carriers are also applying fees for diverted bookings. Freightos Terminal container rates for Shanghai to Jebel Ali in Dubai spiked from $1,800 per 40′ container on Saturday to more than $4,000/FEU by Tuesday likely reflecting these surcharges. On the main east-west trades though, rates were stable last week as the Lunar New Year holiday period is still approaching its end, and prices have remained level so far this week too.

War impacts are also reaching the Red Sea. The Houthis – who’ve paused attacks on Red Sea vessels since October – have threatened to resume strikes, though none have been reported yet. In response, the few carriers who had resumed some Red Sea sailings have diverted these vessels back around the Cape of Good Hope until further notice, possibly pushing a full Red Sea return farther off once again.

The crisis may have bigger and more immediate impacts for air cargo. The IRGC has targeted airports in Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, Kuwait and Dubai, with airports and airspace still closed. These closures are directly impacting shippers of volumes to and from the region.

But gulf carriers Qatar Airways and Emirates Skycargo are two of the top three largest cargo carriers by capacity, and together with Etihad make up about 13% of global capacity. Their hubs serve as a major east-west connection point, making up, for example, about a quarter of all China – Europe capacity according to Aevean.

With these carriers’ flights cancelled, many of their aircraft grounded and their hubs inaccessible, global capacity has dipped over the last few days, though there are also signs that direct Asia – Europe capacity has increased in response. South and South East Asian air exports are also heavily dependent on transit through the Middle East for movements west and there are already reports of shippers on these lanes facing disruptions, delays and scrambling for alternatives.

Kuehne + Nagel says forwarders are starting to charter direct Far East – West flights to make up for the missing capacity and that it expect backlogs of Europe and US-bound cargo in Asia to begin stacking up by the end of the week, creating a backlog that could cause delays and push up prices.

Climbing rates on some lanes may already reflect the war disruptions and blow to available capacity. Freightos Air Index data show rates from South East Asia to Europe have climbed more than 6% to $3.82/kg since Friday, with South Asia rates up 3% to Europe and 5% to the US. Middle East – Europe prices are up 8% to $1.62/kg and China -US prices are up 15% to $6.90/kg, though rates had begun increasing before the start of the war, possibly due to the start of some post-LNY bump.

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.

Prateek

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 Iran war pushing air rates up, and disrupting ocean – March 4, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Ocean rates climb again even as fuel costs ease – June 23, 2026 Update

Published

on

By

Ocean rates climb again even as fuel costs ease – June 23, 2026 Update

Published: June 25, 2026

Blog

Weekly highlights

Ocean rates – Freightos Baltic Index

Asia-US West Coast prices (FBX01 Weekly) increased 19%.

Asia-US East Coast prices (FBX03 Weekly) increased 13%.

Asia-N. Europe prices (FBX11 Weekly) increased 13%.

Asia-Mediterranean prices (FBX13 Weekly) increased 16%.

Air rates – Freightos Air Index

China – N. America weekly prices increased 17%.

China – N. Europe weekly prices were level.

N. Europe – N. America weekly prices increased 2%.

Analysis

The US-Iran interim agreement appears to be driving a gradual reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, even with Iran announcing a renewed closure following Israel and Hezbollah exchanges of fire.

Though still well below pre-war levels, Hormuz transits have increased since the announcement of the Memorandum of Understanding. As part of this week’s renewed negotiations, Iran and the US have opened a hotline between the two to avoid miscommunications regarding traffic through the Strait. But talks have also shown Iran intends to assert some control over the waterway as part of the settlement – a big shift from the pre-war status quo.

The renewed traffic comprises mostly tankers, and container carriers are likely to activate mostly feeder services instead of long haul port calls to the Gulf once transits do rebound and until confidence returns to the lane. The prospect of peace has driven CMA CGM to increase its Red Sea transits, which could signal more carriers will follow that lead at some point if negotiations progress.

The prospect of more stability as well as the fact of an increase in oil flows have already driven down crude prices, with some measures now only 5% higher than before the war. Bunker and jet fuel prices are also easing with bunker rates down 25% from their March highs and 12% compared just to the start of June, though prices remain about 40% higher than in February. Jet fuel prices are down more than 40% from their peak and are 20% higher than before the closure.

But even as fuel costs ease, container rates continue to climb as peaking demand from an early busy season is keeping vessels full at least into July. This development likewise means spot rates will start easing from the current or near term levels as demand decreases, regardless of what happens in the Strait.

The early start to peak season – driven by multiple factors including frontloading ahead of BAF increases, coming Section 122 tariff expirations and Section 301 introductions for transpacific shippers, and July manufacturer price hikes – has some observers expecting bookings to peak in June, which could mean carriers will find more resistance to July rate increases than they have to June price hikes so far.

For now though, prices are high and getting higher. Transpacific rates climbed 19% to the West Coast to more than $5,700/FEU, with daily prices past the $6k/FEU mark so far this week. Rates to the East Coast increased 13% to $7,400/FEU last week with daily rates now past $8,000/FEU – a mark already above last year’s peak season high. Some carriers have announced additional steep increases for July.

Asia – Europe rates grew 13% last week to $4,700/FEU and Asia – Mediterranean prices increased 16% to $6,300/FEU, both well above last year’s peak season highs but level so far this week. The recent increases pushed Mediterranean rates to about the announced GRI or PSS levels, while Europe prices are about $1k/FEU beneath the target set by several carriers.

Planned July increases have some carriers aspiring for Asia – Europe rates $3k/FEU higher than current levels and Mediterranean prices $1-$2k/FEU higher, with increases announced across an array of secondary lanes as well.

The sharp June rate gains show that even as the global fleet continues to grow, significant increases in demand and shipper urgency – currently helped along by a fuel price-adjusted elevated starting point, Red Sea diversions, and peak season congestion causing delays and likewise effectively reducing capacity – are still enough to push spot prices to very elevated levels, at least for a while.

But with rates on some lanes already below aspired-to levels, and frontloading implying an early end to the fairly sudden demand boom, the question remains how much higher prices will climb and for how long.

As noted, jet fuel prices have eased since the prospects of a reopened Hormuz have increased. So far though, air cargo rates have stayed level, though down from earlier highs on most lanes, including for China, South Asia and Southeast Asia cargo flows to Europe. Prices to N. America have nonetheless trended upward, possibly buoyed by last chance Amazon Prime Day demand.

The European Union will suspend its de minimis exemption on July 1st. Though many observers expected last year’s US rule change to drive a transpacific e-commerce exodus from the air, the big e-comm platforms mostly adjusted tactics, preserving e-comm volumes as a still major – if not as colossal – driver of air demand. Most experts, therefore, don’t expect the EU rule change to trigger a sharp drop in e-comm flows or air rates.

But the change will make the EU, in comparison, suddenly much less attractive to cross-border e-comm sellers than the nearby UK market, which will only change its de minimis rules in 2029. This looming disparity has some in the UK warning of a coming flood of low cost goods starting in July, and urging the government to expedite the policy shift.

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 Ocean rates climb again even as fuel costs ease – June 23, 2026 Update appeared first on Freightos.

Continue Reading

Non classé

The Future TMS Buyer May Not Be Buying Software Alone

Published

on

By

For years, the transportation management system market has been framed as a software market. A shipper buys a TMS to plan, execute, settle, and analyze freight. The software manages routing guides, tenders loads, tracks shipments, calculates freight costs, audits invoices, and produces reports.

That model still exists. But it no longer fully describes the market.

The boundaries between TMS, managed transportation, freight brokerage, digital freight platforms, control towers, and 3PL services are becoming less clean. Buyers may enter the market asking for software, but what they often need is a better transportation operating model.

That distinction matters.

The future TMS buyer may not be buying software alone. They may be buying technology, execution capacity, market access, analytics, workflow automation, and outcome ownership in a combined package.

Download the TMS Market Research Executive Summary for a strategic view of how TMS buying decisions are expanding beyond traditional execution software.

The Clean Category Lines Are Breaking Down

Historically, the categories were easier to separate. A TMS vendor sold software. A broker sourced capacity. A managed transportation provider operated freight on behalf of the shipper. A 3PL provided logistics services. A visibility provider tracked shipments. A control tower monitored network performance.

Those distinctions have become harder to maintain. Some brokers now offer shipper-facing platforms that look like TMS-lite systems. Some TMS vendors support embedded procurement and capacity access. Some managed transportation providers combine software, people, analytics, and carrier management in one service. Some 3PLs offer control tower capabilities. Some visibility and network platforms are expanding into execution workflows.

The market is converging around the buyer’s actual problem: transportation is difficult to operate well. The buyer may not care whether a provider fits perfectly into a legacy category if the provider can help move freight more reliably, reduce manual work, improve decision-making, and create better cost and service outcomes.

Buyers Want Outcomes, Not Just Functionality

A traditional software evaluation might focus on features. Can the system tender loads? Can it build shipments? Can it rate freight? Can it track milestones? Can it produce dashboards?

Those questions still matter. But many shippers are facing a broader set of challenges.

They may lack transportation staff. They may have fragmented regional operations. They may struggle with carrier performance. They may not have strong freight procurement analytics. They may lack the data quality needed to use a sophisticated TMS well. They may need help redesigning processes, not just digitizing them.

In those cases, software alone may not solve the problem.

A TMS can enable better transportation management, but it does not automatically create transportation excellence. The organization still needs process discipline, carrier strategy, exception management, data governance, and analytical capability.

That is why buyers increasingly consider hybrid models.

The Rise of Embedded Services

One of the most important developments in transportation technology is the blending of software and services. This is not simply outsourcing under a new label. It reflects the reality that transportation outcomes depend on both system capability and operational execution.

A shipper may want a TMS, but also need freight procurement support, carrier onboarding, routing guide design, spot market access, exception management, freight audit support, performance analytics, customer communication workflows, network optimization, and continuous improvement. Some organizations will build these capabilities internally. Others will look for providers that combine technology and managed services.

This creates opportunities for TMS vendors, 3PLs, brokers, and managed transportation providers, but it also creates confusion. The buyer has to determine whether they are selecting software, a service model, a capacity provider, or an operating partner. Often, the answer is some combination of all four.

Why Brokers and TMS Vendors Are Moving Toward Each Other

The convergence between TMS and brokerage is especially important.

Brokers historically made money by sourcing capacity and managing transactions. But as digital freight models evolve, brokers increasingly need technology interfaces that make it easier for shippers to quote, tender, track, and analyze freight.

At the same time, TMS vendors recognize that execution decisions often depend on capacity availability and market pricing. A TMS that can recommend a carrier but cannot help solve a capacity problem may be limited. Embedded capacity options can make the software more useful.

This does not mean every TMS becomes a broker or every broker becomes a TMS vendor. But the overlap is increasing.

The shipper does not care about category boundaries as much as they care about whether freight moves reliably, cost-effectively, and with minimal operational friction.

The Control Tower Complication

Control towers add another layer to the convergence. Many companies want an integrated view of transportation performance, exceptions, inventory impact, customer risk, and network disruption. That requirement does not fit neatly into one traditional category.

A control tower may be delivered by a software vendor, a 3PL, a managed transportation provider, or an internal team using multiple tools. It may include visibility, analytics, workflow management, decision support, and escalation processes.

This reinforces the broader point: the buyer is often not simply buying a TMS. The buyer is trying to improve transportation control.

How Shippers Should Evaluate the Market

As the category boundaries blur, shippers need to be more precise about their own needs. The first question is not simply which TMS has the best feature set. The first question is what operating problem the organization is trying to solve.

Some shippers need better software because they already have the internal transportation team, procurement discipline, and process maturity to use it effectively. Others need a more complete operating model because they lack staff, carrier analytics, procurement support, or exception-management capacity. Still others need better access to capacity, stronger control tower visibility, or a more standardized transportation process across regions and business units.

These distinctions matter. Buying software when the real problem is operating capability can lead to disappointment. Outsourcing execution when the real need is better internal process control can create a different kind of problem. The best buying process starts with a clear view of which transportation capabilities should be owned internally and which are better delivered through a partner.

The Market Will Reward Clear Operating Models

The future transportation technology market will not be defined only by software functionality. It will be defined by operating models.

Some shippers will want best-of-breed TMS platforms they operate themselves. Others will want managed transportation services with strong technology. Others will want embedded brokerage and procurement capabilities. Others will want network platforms that connect execution, visibility, and analytics.

There is no single right answer.

But there is a wrong answer: buying software when the real problem is operating capability, or outsourcing execution when the real need is better internal process control.

The TMS market is no longer just about systems of record or systems of execution. It is becoming part of a broader transportation decision and operating infrastructure.

The future TMS buyer may still buy software.

But increasingly, they will also be buying a model for how transportation gets managed.

Download the TMS Market Research Executive Summary for a strategic view of how the TMS market is moving toward software, services, analytics, and decision infrastructure.

The post The Future TMS Buyer May Not Be Buying Software Alone appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Non classé

Autonomous Tendering Is Coming for the Routing Guide

Published

on

By

The routing guide has long been one of the central control mechanisms in transportation management. It reflects negotiated rates, preferred carriers, service expectations, contractual commitments, and years of transportation experience. For many shippers, it is the operating logic behind freight execution.

But that logic is increasingly being tested.

As AI-enabled transportation management systems evolve, tendering will become more dynamic, more automated, and more analytical. Instead of transportation teams manually working through static routing guides, systems will continuously evaluate carrier performance, capacity conditions, service risk, cost, spot market alternatives, appointment constraints, and historical behavior.

Download the TMS Market Research Executive Summary for a strategic view of how AI, automation, and decision intelligence are reshaping transportation management.

The result is a major shift in transportation execution: autonomous tendering.

This does not mean humans disappear from freight procurement. But it does mean the traditional routing guide will be forced to evolve from a static sequence of carrier preferences into a dynamic decision framework.

The Routing Guide Was Built for a More Stable Market

The traditional routing guide makes sense in a world where conditions are relatively stable. A shipper runs an annual or semiannual bid. Carriers are awarded lanes. Primary, secondary, and backup carriers are ranked. The TMS tenders freight according to that hierarchy.

When the market is balanced and carrier commitments hold, this model works well enough. It creates structure, supports compliance, and helps transportation teams manage cost.

But freight markets are rarely static for long.

Capacity tightens. Spot rates move. Carrier service performance changes. Facilities become congested. Customer requirements shift. Weather, labor constraints, port delays, equipment imbalances, and regional disruptions alter the real economics of a shipment.

A routing guide created months ago may not reflect today’s best decision.

This is where autonomous tendering becomes powerful.

What Autonomous Tendering Actually Means

Autonomous tendering is not simply automated tender sequencing. Basic tender automation has existed for years. The more important development is decision automation.

An AI-enabled TMS can evaluate multiple variables at the time of tender. It can consider historical acceptance rates, recent lane-level performance, real-time capacity conditions, cost and service tradeoffs, facility constraints, appointment availability, customer priority, spot market alternatives, emissions considerations, and exception risk. The system is no longer only asking, “Who is next in the routing guide?” It is asking, “Which option is most likely to produce the best outcome under current conditions?”

That may still mean tendering to the primary carrier. But it may also mean skipping a carrier with deteriorating performance, selecting a carrier with better recent reliability, using a digital freight option, or escalating the shipment before failure occurs. The point is not automation for its own sake. The point is better execution under changing conditions.

Why This Is Controversial

Transportation has always depended on judgment. Experienced transportation managers know which carriers perform well, which lanes are difficult, which facilities create dwell time, and which relationships matter. Freight procurement is not purely mathematical.

That is why autonomous tendering can feel threatening.

It challenges the idea that the routing guide should be the primary expression of transportation strategy. It also exposes uncomfortable realities. Some routing guides are stale. Some carrier rankings reflect old assumptions. Some decisions are shaped by habit rather than current performance. Some “preferred” carriers are preferred because they won a bid, not because they are the best choice today.

AI does not eliminate the need for procurement judgment, but it does make weak logic more visible.

From Static Compliance to Dynamic Optimization

For years, transportation organizations have measured routing guide compliance. That made sense when the routing guide was considered the best available plan. But in a more dynamic market, strict compliance is not always the right goal.

A better question is whether the shipment was executed according to the best available decision at the time.

This changes the role of the routing guide. It becomes one input into a broader optimization model, not the entire model. Contracted rates and carrier commitments still matter, but they must be evaluated alongside service risk, acceptance probability, market conditions, and business priority.

The future routing guide may look less like a fixed ladder and more like a decision policy.

Human Oversight Still Matters

Autonomous tendering should not be confused with unmanaged automation. Transportation is too important to leave entirely to opaque systems. Shippers will need guardrails, approval thresholds, exception rules, and auditability.

The system may be allowed to autonomously tender standard freight within defined parameters. But high-value shipments, strategic customers, expensive expedites, unusual equipment, and contractual exceptions may still require human review.

The best model is not human versus machine. It is human-supervised autonomy.

Transportation managers define the strategy, constraints, and escalation rules. The system executes within those boundaries, learns from outcomes, and surfaces exceptions when human intervention is valuable.

What Buyers Should Look For

Shippers evaluating TMS capabilities should look beyond whether a platform can automate tenders. The more important question is whether it can improve tendering decisions.

A strong system should be able to evaluate acceptance probability, incorporate recent carrier performance, consider spot market intelligence, and explain why a carrier was selected. It should also allow users to define operating rules by customer, lane, region, facility, shipment priority, or business unit. In practice, this means the system should not merely execute a routing guide. It should help transportation leaders understand whether the routing guide is still producing the intended cost, service, and reliability outcomes.

The best platforms will also learn from tender rejections, service failures, and changing market conditions. That learning loop is what separates basic execution automation from transportation decision intelligence.

The Routing Guide Is Not Dead, But It Is Being Redefined

The routing guide will not disappear. Shippers still need contracted capacity, procurement discipline, and carrier strategy. But the routing guide will no longer be enough on its own.

Autonomous tendering is coming because the transportation environment is too dynamic for static decision logic. The winners will be the organizations that treat AI not as a replacement for procurement expertise, but as a way to operationalize that expertise at scale.

The future routing guide will not simply tell the system who to tender to first.

It will tell the system how to decide.

Download the TMS Market Research Executive Summary for a strategic view of how autonomous tendering, routing guide strategy, and transportation execution are evolving.

The post Autonomous Tendering Is Coming for the Routing Guide appeared first on Logistics Viewpoints.

Continue Reading

Trending