You can get a parcel delivered almost anywhere these days and on your terms whether you want a proof of delivery or a Saturday pickup. But you can also expect to pay for it.
Michael Erickson is president of AFMS Inc., a consulting company that specializes in negotiating shipping contracts and service terms. He can be reached at (800) 246-3521 or via the company's Web site, www.afms.com.
It's a scene repeated countless times each day in offices and shipping rooms across America. There's a tap at the door and in walks a UPS or FedEx delivery person. As he (or she) drops off the package, the driver either runs a scanner over the label or requests a signature on that handheld device he or she carries before heading out the door.Whichever the case, it's clear that package delivery these days isn't just a matter of moving a parcel between two points; it's about creating a full electronic record of a parcel's whereabouts every step of the way.
The benefits of collecting all this information are undeniable. Access to tracking and tracing data can prove invaluable to a manager frantically awaiting an urgent shipment. And the signatures collected as proof of delivery have settled many a dispute. But there's unquestionably a downside as well. Shippers may not realize it, but the information being captured in those innocuous-looking devices is also affecting the prices they pay for small-package service.
With several years' worth of detailed data on their expenses, carriers from Airborne to FedEx now know exactly what it costs to deliver each package. They know who's likely to give them shipments that are relatively cheap to handle on a per-package basis, like half a truckload of parcels delivered to a single city block near one of the carrier's major hubs. They also know which shippers are more expensive to serve, the ones that routinely send parcels to impossibly remote locations or request a lot of extras. They know what it costs to collect a signature. They know what it costs to provide a photocopy of the airbill. And they know what it costs to make a detour for an unscheduled pickup.
Armed with specific cost-toserve information, carriers are no longer shy about recouping those costs, generally in the form of service charges or accessorial fees. Just a few years ago, no tariff contained more than a handful of accessorial charges.
Today there are fees for everything—around 80 at last count. Need a shipment picked up on a Saturday? That will be $2.50 (on top of the regular charges). Want to change the terms of a COD collection? That will be $7. Need a written proof of delivery? That will be $5.How about a residential delivery? Figure on paying an extra $1 to $1.75. Want a verbal confirmation of delivery? $2. Address correction? $5 for ground and $10 for air shipments. Whatever the service, it's no longer safe to assume it's included in the price of the delivery.
No more package deals? It's easy to understand why carriers like those fees. First, collecting surcharges allows them to recoup the added costs they incur for hard-to-deliver shipments. And more to the point, in a competitive marketplace, collecting fees and surcharges allows carriers to raise revenues without announcing huge rate increases. But there's more to the small-package pricing shift than a few fees. Though many shippers aren't aware of it, carriers are also using their enhanced costto- serve data when drawing up contracts with customers.
In the past, small-package rate setting was a pretty straightforward matter. Pricing was based on a fairly simple formula that factored in zones, volume, weight and seasonality. Discounting was a straightforward process as well. When a carrier offered a shipper a discount, it was for all the shipments in that service field from zone 2 - one pound to zone 8 - 199 pounds.
Not any more. Look at a contract today and you'll likely be in for a shock. Carriers have taken all the data collected by their drivers over the years, wrestled it through their computer systems, and developed sophisticated cost-toserve models that bear little resemblance to pricing schemes used in the past. Gone are simple rates based on zones and volumes. Instead, carriers are using complex algorithms based on at least 10 often obscure factors, such as rolling averages, cell-by-cell pricing and revenue tiers.
Granted, it's complex, but it's not necessarily cause for dismay. Nor is it a sign that you should enroll in law school or dust off your old calculus textbooks.What you do need to understand is what the carriers consider profitable and unprofitable in terms of package characteristics and where your freight fits in. In the end, that's what will determine the rates and discounts carriers are willing to offer you.
You also need to be able to decipher the new terms that are cropping up in contracts with increasing frequency. Here's a little quiz: Can you identify the following 10 terms?
Net minimums
Matrix pricing
Cell-by-cell pricing
Revenue tier
Rolling averages
Product group (portfolio) pricing
Ramp-up period
Delivery codes
Accessorial charges
Delivery density
These are important to know. Though not every term will appear in every contract, it's a good bet you'll encounter some or even most of them the next time you read through a contract. Here's a brief explanation:
Net minimums – Minimum rates set by the carrier, typically a set figure or the gross cost of a one-pound, zone 2 package, which ensures the carrier a minimum revenue for delivering that package.
Matrix pricing – Pricing based on discounts that may change by weight or zone for each service. There may also be a bonus offered as an incentive for meeting a certain revenue threshold.
Cell-by-cell pricing – A pricing formula under which specific rates apply to specific weight and zone combinations.
Revenue tier Carriers will assign you to a specific revenue tier or band, depending on the weekly average revenue you provide them. These tiers are then used to determine discounts.
Rolling average – Carriers use rolling averages to determine the average weekly revenue levels you provide them. Rolling averages are recalculated each week—the oldest week's worth of data are dropped and the most recent week's are added on—so that they reflect the most recent 13- week period.
Product group (portfolio) pricing – In an effort to capture all of your business— air, ground, home deliveries, and so on— a carrier may offer a "product pricing" package with discounts that max out only if you give it all of your business.
Ramp-up period – The grace period for target discounts before the contract goes into effect.
Delivery codes – Carriers use these to classify delivery destinations as rural, super rural or urban. Extra charges will apply for deliveries to rural and super rural areas.
Accessorial charges – Ancillary charges being applied to the cost of a shipment for various reasons, such as oversize and dimensional weights, address changes or residential deliveries.
Delivery density – The number of pieces being delivered at one time to one place. Obviously, the higher the delivery density, the lower the carrier's per-package costs.
Knowledge is power If you didn't know half of these terms and you ship packages under contract with a carrier like UPS or FedEx, you need to reeducate yourself. Ignorance could end up costing you thousands of dollars weekly. You might want to consider getting expert advice to help you evaluate how these charges and costing methods affect your business.
In the meantime, find out as much as you can on your own. Attend some industry trade shows, talk to some experts and get some help figuring out these new contracts and what's behind them.
Too many companies negotiate in the dark. Don't be one of them. Do your research, pay attention to the details, and focus your efforts on steps you can take to make your freight more attractive to carriers. They've gone to the trouble of collecting all the data and using it for their own benefit; now it's time to see if you can't turn it to your advantage as well.
Congestion on U.S. highways is costing the trucking industry big, according to research from the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI), released today.
The group found that traffic congestion on U.S. highways added $108.8 billion in costs to the trucking industry in 2022, a record high. The information comes from ATRI’s Cost of Congestion study, which is part of the organization’s ongoing highway performance measurement research.
Total hours of congestion fell slightly compared to 2021 due to softening freight market conditions, but the cost of operating a truck increased at a much higher rate, according to the research. As a result, the overall cost of congestion increased by 15% year-over-year—a level equivalent to more than 430,000 commercial truck drivers sitting idle for one work year and an average cost of $7,588 for every registered combination truck.
The analysis also identified metropolitan delays and related impacts, showing that the top 10 most-congested states each experienced added costs of more than $8 billion. That list was led by Texas, at $9.17 billion in added costs; California, at $8.77 billion; and Florida, $8.44 billion. Rounding out the top 10 list were New York, Georgia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, and Tennessee. Combined, the top 10 states account for more than half of the trucking industry’s congestion costs nationwide—52%, according to the research.
The metro areas with the highest congestion costs include New York City, $6.68 billion; Miami, $3.2 billion; and Chicago, $3.14 billion.
ATRI’s analysis also found that the trucking industry wasted more than 6.4 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2022 due to congestion, resulting in additional fuel costs of $32.1 billion.
ATRI used a combination of data sources, including its truck GPS database and Operational Costs study benchmarks, to calculate the impacts of trucking delays on major U.S. roadways.
There’s a photo from 1971 that John Kent, professor of supply chain management at the University of Arkansas, likes to show. It’s of a shaggy-haired 18-year-old named Glenn Cowan grinning at three-time world table tennis champion Zhuang Zedong, while holding a silk tapestry Zhuang had just given him. Cowan was a member of the U.S. table tennis team who participated in the 1971 World Table Tennis Championships in Nagoya, Japan. Story has it that one morning, he overslept and missed his bus to the tournament and had to hitch a ride with the Chinese national team and met and connected with Zhuang.
Cowan and Zhuang’s interaction led to an invitation for the U.S. team to visit China. At the time, the two countries were just beginning to emerge from a 20-year period of decidedly frosty relations, strict travel bans, and trade restrictions. The highly publicized trip signaled a willingness on both sides to renew relations and launched the term “pingpong diplomacy.”
Kent, who is a senior fellow at the George H. W. Bush Foundation for U.S.-China Relations, believes the photograph is a good reminder that some 50-odd years ago, the economies of the United States and China were not as tightly interwoven as they are today. At the time, the Nixon administration was looking to form closer political and economic ties between the two countries in hopes of reducing chances of future conflict (and to weaken alliances among Communist countries).
The signals coming out of Washington and Beijing are now, of course, much different than they were in the early 1970s. Instead of advocating for better relations, political rhetoric focuses on the need for the U.S. to “decouple” from China. Both Republicans and Democrats have warned that the U.S. economy is too dependent on goods manufactured in China. They see this dependency as a threat to economic strength, American jobs, supply chain resiliency, and national security.
Supply chain professionals, however, know that extricating ourselves from our reliance on Chinese manufacturing is easier said than done. Many pundits push for a “China + 1” strategy, where companies diversify their manufacturing and sourcing options beyond China. But in reality, that “plus one” is often a Chinese company operating in a different country or a non-Chinese manufacturer that is still heavily dependent on material or subcomponents made in China.
This is the problem when supply chain decisions are made on a global scale without input from supply chain professionals. In an article in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Kent argues that, “The discussions on supply chains mainly take place between government officials who typically bring many other competing issues and agendas to the table. Corporate entities—the individuals and companies directly impacted by supply chains—tend to be under-represented in the conversation.”
Kent is a proponent of what he calls “supply chain diplomacy,” where experts from academia and industry from the U.S. and China work collaboratively to create better, more efficient global supply chains. Take, for example, the “Peace Beans” project that Kent is involved with. This project, jointly formed by Zhejiang University and the Bush China Foundation, proposes balancing supply chains by exporting soybeans from Arkansas to tofu producers in China’s Yunnan province, and, in return, importing coffee beans grown in Yunnan to coffee roasters in Arkansas. Kent believes the operation could even use the same transportation equipment.
The benefits of working collaboratively—instead of continuing to build friction in the supply chain through tariffs and adversarial relationships—are numerous, according to Kent and his colleagues. They believe it would be much better if the two major world economies worked together on issues like global inflation, climate change, and artificial intelligence.
And such relations could play a significant role in strengthening world peace, particularly in light of ongoing tensions over Taiwan. Because, as Kent writes, “The 19th-century idea that ‘When goods don’t cross borders, soldiers will’ is as true today as ever. Perhaps more so.”
Hyster-Yale Materials Handling today announced its plans to fulfill the domestic manufacturing requirements of the Build America, Buy America (BABA) Act for certain portions of its lineup of forklift trucks and container handling equipment.
That means the Greenville, North Carolina-based company now plans to expand its existing American manufacturing with a targeted set of high-capacity models, including electric options, that align with the needs of infrastructure projects subject to BABA requirements. The company’s plans include determining the optimal production location in the United States, strategically expanding sourcing agreements to meet local material requirements, and further developing electric power options for high-capacity equipment.
As a part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the BABA Act aims to increase the use of American-made materials in federally funded infrastructure projects across the U.S., Hyster-Yale says. It was enacted as part of a broader effort to boost domestic manufacturing and economic growth, and mandates that federal dollars allocated to infrastructure – such as roads, bridges, ports and public transit systems – must prioritize materials produced in the USA, including critical items like steel, iron and various construction materials.
Hyster-Yale’s footprint in the U.S. is spread across 10 locations, including three manufacturing facilities.
“Our leadership is fully invested in meeting the needs of businesses that require BABA-compliant material handling solutions,” Tony Salgado, Hyster-Yale’s chief operating officer, said in a release. “We are working to partner with our key domestic suppliers, as well as identifying how best to leverage our own American manufacturing footprint to deliver a competitive solution for our customers and stakeholders. But beyond mere compliance, and in line with the many areas of our business where we are evolving to better support our customers, our commitment remains steadfast. We are dedicated to delivering industry-leading standards in design, durability and performance — qualities that have become synonymous with our brands worldwide and that our customers have come to rely on and expect.”
In a separate move, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also gave its approval for the state to advance its Heavy-Duty Omnibus Rule, which is crafted to significantly reduce smog-forming nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from new heavy-duty, diesel-powered trucks.
Both rules are intended to deliver health benefits to California citizens affected by vehicle pollution, according to the environmental group Earthjustice. If the state gets federal approval for the final steps to become law, the rules mean that cars on the road in California will largely be zero-emissions a generation from now in the 2050s, accounting for the average vehicle lifespan of vehicles with internal combustion engine (ICE) power sold before that 2035 date.
“This might read like checking a bureaucratic box, but EPA’s approval is a critical step forward in protecting our lungs from pollution and our wallets from the expenses of combustion fuels,” Paul Cort, director of Earthjustice’s Right To Zero campaign, said in a release. “The gradual shift in car sales to zero-emissions models will cut smog and household costs while growing California’s clean energy workforce. Cutting truck pollution will help clear our skies of smog. EPA should now approve the remaining authorization requests from California to allow the state to clean its air and protect its residents.”
However, the truck drivers' industry group Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) pushed back against the federal decision allowing the Omnibus Low-NOx rule to advance. "The Omnibus Low-NOx waiver for California calls into question the policymaking process under the Biden administration's EPA. Purposefully injecting uncertainty into a $588 billion American industry is bad for our economy and makes no meaningful progress towards purported environmental goals," (OOIDA) President Todd Spencer said in a release. "EPA's credibility outside of radical environmental circles would have been better served by working with regulated industries rather than ramming through last-minute special interest favors. We look forward to working with the Trump administration's EPA in good faith towards achievable environmental outcomes.”
Editor's note:This article was revised on December 18 to add reaction from OOIDA.
Global trade will see a moderate rebound in 2025, likely growing by 3.6% in volume terms, helped by companies restocking and households renewing purchases of durable goods while reducing spending on services, according to a forecast from trade credit insurer Allianz Trade.
The end of the year for 2024 will also likely be supported by companies rushing to ship goods in anticipation of the higher tariffs likely to be imposed by the coming Trump administration, and other potential disruptions in the coming quarters, the report said.
However, that tailwind for global trade will likely shift to a headwind once the effects of a renewed but contained trade war are felt from the second half of 2025 and in full in 2026. As a result, Allianz Trade has throttled back its predictions, saying that global trade in volume will grow by 2.8% in 2025 (reduced by 0.2 percentage points vs. its previous forecast) and 2.3% in 2026 (reduced by 0.5 percentage points).
The same logic applies to Allianz Trade’s forecast for export prices in U.S. dollars, which the firm has now revised downward to predict growth reaching 2.3% in 2025 (reduced by 1.7 percentage points) and 4.1% in 2026 (reduced by 0.8 percentage points).
In the meantime, the rush to frontload imports into the U.S. is giving freight carriers an early Christmas present. According to Allianz Trade, data released last week showed Chinese exports rising by a robust 6.7% y/y in November. And imports of some consumer goods that have been threatened with a likely 25% tariff under the new Trump administration have outperformed even more, growing by nearly 20% y/y on average between July and September.