Mark Solomon joined DC VELOCITY as senior editor in August 2008, and was promoted to his current position on January 1, 2015. He has spent more than 30 years in the transportation, logistics and supply chain management fields as a journalist and public relations professional. From 1989 to 1994, he worked in Washington as a reporter for the Journal of Commerce, covering the aviation and trucking industries, the Department of Transportation, Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court. Prior to that, he worked for Traffic World for seven years in a similar role. From 1994 to 2008, Mr. Solomon ran Media-Based Solutions, a public relations firm based in Atlanta. He graduated in 1978 with a B.A. in journalism from The American University in Washington, D.C.
On Jan. 5, FedEx Express, the air unit of FedEx Corp., implemented a 6.9 percent "average" rate increase for its 2009 services, minus 2 percent for a reduction in applicable fuel surcharges. The same day, UPS Inc., FedEx's chief rival, imposed general rate increases of 4.9 percent and 5.9 percent, depending on the product.
For certain shipments, however, tariffs have risen by far more than these averages. As the carriers were gearing up, an analysis by Air Freight Management Services (AFMS), a parcel consultancy in Portland, Ore., discovered that rates for FedEx Express's next-afternoon delivery product on movements of at least 1,200 miles were actually poised to increase by 9.3 percent, and that prices for the product, known as "Standard Afternoon," were set to rise above the median threshold across all eight ZIP-codebased zones and weight classes. AFMS also found that rates for FedEx Express's nextmorning delivery product, "Priority Overnight," were slated to rise by nearly 7.8 percent from 2008 levels, also higher than the company's announced 2009 average rate increase.
And a closer look at UPS's rate plans revealed a new surcharge to hit more than 19,000 rural U.S. ZIP codes receiving residential deliveries. Residential addresses in those ZIP codes would essentially be classified as "superrural" areas and would be subject to a new "extended" Delivery Area Surcharge from UPS. As a result, those addresses would now face three separate surcharges: one for delivering to a residence, a second for being in areas already exposed to a rural delivery surcharge, and the third for the new geographic classification.
Consultants to the rescue
Unless shippers were willing or able to dig below the surface, those actions—and others just like them— may have gone unnoticed. That may explain why shipper executives in contract talks with one of the major parcel carriers sometimes feel they've walked into a gunfight without their gun.
On one side of the table are the carrier executives, hardnosed bargainers who understand the ins and outs of parcel pricing far better than most shippers ever will. On the other is the customer, who, unless it is a truly highvolume shipper, probably doesn't devote much time to parcel rate analysis. The fact that most of today's parcel contracts run three to five years makes it even harder for shippers to stay on top of their game and resist going into "set-it-and-forget-it" mode with their parcel business.
In addition, most shippers lack the resources to develop and maintain IT systems to monitor annual rate changes affecting air and ground delivery services in 50,000 U.S. lane segments across the eight ZIP-codebased "zones." Nor is it easy for them to stay ahead of the growing array of "accessorial" charges, fees carriers tack on to their base rates to compensate themselves for services separate from the basic pickups and deliveries within easytoreach ZIP codes. Today, there are an estimated 50 accessorial charges, compared to one or two in the mid 1980s. Accessorial charges can add as much as 25 percent to the total cost of a shipment if fuel surcharges at presentday oil prices are factored in, experts say.
Nearly 25 years ago, an industry emerged to help shippers level the playing field. Today, there are 48 companies providing some type of parcel consulting, according to estimates from AFMS, a pioneer in the field. Many are smalltimers who provide services on an ad hoc basis. The larger players offer a broader menu ranging from carrier negotiating and freight auditing and payment, to service analysis and bundling.
Some have branched out into other categories such as lessthantruckload analysis and negotiations, as FedEx and UPS expand their own service offerings. "The successful consultants will build expertise across all modes of transportation," says Douglas Kahl, vice president, strategic initiatives for Tranzact Technologies, a consultancy based in Elmhurst, Ill.
While consulting services vary depending on the consultant, the mission is the same: save money for the customer. The consensus is that a knowledgeable, experienced consultant with powerful IT tools should save a shipper at least 10 percent a year on its annual parcel spending by identifying areas of potential overspend as well as opportunities to strike a better deal for the traffic it tenders.
Sometimes, savings come from seemingly simple requests. Jerry Hempstead, founder and president of Hempstead Consulting, an Orlando, Fla.based parcel consultancy, said he knew of a case involving two shippers in the same industry where the company tendering smaller volumes actually got better rates because it negotiated fuel surcharges out of its contract and its rival did not.
Many parcel consultants still charge a flat rate for their services. However, the marketplace is migrating to a "gainsharing" fee formula, where the shipper pays only if the consultant negotiates cost savings. The two then divvy up the spoils. This form of "contingency" pricing has become popular because it essentially puts shippers in a nolose situation, experts contend.
Most consultancies are staffed with former highranking parcel carrier executives intimately familiar with the strategies and tactics of their former employers. These consultants, which see themselves as extensions of their customers' traffic departments, prefer to build long-lasting relationships with clients rather than perform transactional triage and depart from the scene. The prominent consultants are unlikely to accept customers that spend less than $250,000 a year for parcel services, and some set the bar as high as $500,000 to $1 million.
Be prepared
Consultants say it is vital for their customers to keep abreast of their contracts, especially those that were signed two years ago when times were better. Shippers that seek to renegotiate their contracts may risk the loss of their existing discounts, but they would not be subject to penalties or any legal action, according to consultants. Many shippers don't know they can ask for contract modifications in midstream to secure lower rates or avoid the loss of discounts should volumes fall below previously negotiated levels, consultants say.
"My advice is to not just sit in a contract. Be proactive," says Kahl of Tranzact.
In difficult economic times, carriers may be more flexible in renegotiating contracts to accommodate reduced volumes in order to keep the business they already have, consultants say. With shipping activity down and carriers still needing to fill their planes and trucks, FedEx, UPS, and the U.S. Postal Service will fight tooth and nail to win new accounts and keep existing ones. "The word has come down from on high: 'Don't come back and tell us you lost a bid or customer because of price,'" says Hempstead.
Even DHL Express's Jan. 30 exit from the U.S. market has done little to tilt the balance of power away from the buyer. "FedEx and UPS are very keen to compete as if DHL was still around," says Satish Jindel, president of SJ Consulting, a Pittsburghbased consultant.
Consultants say they and their customers are best served by putting themselves in the carriers' shoes both during negotiations and throughout the contract's life. By better understanding the carrier's mindset and objectives, they say, shippers not only gain bargaining leverage but also build goodwill that can pay off if future market conditions compel the shipper to renegotiate existing terms. "The reason a shipper may get special rates is not because [it is] a better negotiator. It's because [that shipper is] more aware of the characteristics of the carrier," says Jindel.
Rich Corrado, who joined AFMS in 2008 as chief operating officer following a long and highprofile career in the parcel field, says his firm analyzes a customer's shipping and spending activity in much the same way a carrier would. "The way we view the client data is similar to the way the carrier would view it," he says.
Corrado says although a consultant can add considerable value, its presence shouldn't be a signal to the customer that the consultant will do all the lifting. The most successful parcel customers are those that "understand their own shipping profiles. They understand their product distribution by zones, and they understand their mix of highvalue and lowvalue products."
Adds Jindel, "Those that get the best deals have as detailed an understanding of the characteristics of their shipping as their carrier does."
Consultants add that shippers can avoid accessorial charges by being more disciplined in their processes and paperwork. At a recent industry conference, Paul Herron, FedEx Express's vice president, postal transportation and customer engineering, said one out of four domestic air shipments required an address correction for delivery. Hempstead of Hempstead Consulting estimates that carriers levy a $10 fee for making an address correction and directing the courier to the proper location."Shippers can do a better job of verifying addresses, and it's something they can do without a consultant," he says.
For the many tasks parcel shippers are unwilling and unable to tackle, consultants stand at the ready. In a time when austerity and cost cutting are in vogue, consultants feel good about their competitive position. "There's no better business to be in than one that saves people money," says Corrado.
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.