It was never love at first sight. But freight brokers and less-than-truckload carriers may find that arranged marriages could end up being profitable ones.
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.
Jett McCandless and Tommy Skinner believe they have gone where no transportation folk have gone before. McCandless is
founder and president of a Chicago-based consultancy called CarrierDirect. Skinner is vice president of Shift Freight, based
in Santa Fe Springs, Calif. CarrierDirect is the primary sales channel for Shift, which operates a range of less-than-truckload
(LTL) services from the West Coast into the Midwest and the Northeast through an outsourced network of carriers.
Shift isn't the lowest-cost provider. Yet in 10 months in business, it has established itself as a reliable player that sticks
to its hauling commitments even if it means carrying the load at a loss. What is different about CarrierDirect and Shift is they
are believed to have formed the first LTL model built to work only with brokers and third-party logistics providers (3PLs).
So far, Shift's early life has been mostly free of the usual growing pains. It has quadrupled its revenue year-on-year. It
recently announced a 30-percent expansion of its coverage area. And it seems to have found a receptive audience. McCandless, who
consults with LTL carriers to help them penetrate the broker universe and who sits on Shift's board, calls the company the "future
of LTL carriers."
Whether Shift fulfills that lofty expectation remains to be seen. What is evident, though, is that brokers and 3PLs—
especially those living in the "transactional" world that matches loads with trucks—are increasingly interested in doing business
with LTL carriers. And LTL carriers are returning the eye contact.
BUILDING ON A SOLID FOUNDATION
LTL carriers and intermediaries are no strangers to each other. Many shippers would rather work through their 3PLs than directly
with the carriers, said Bill Crowe, vice president, corporate sales for LTL carrier YRC Worldwide Inc. About 40 percent of all LTL
shipments are today billed through a 3PL, according to data from the American Trucking Associations (ATA) and the Georgia Center
of Innovation for Logistics.
Old Dominion Freight Line Inc., widely considered the country's top LTL carrier, gets about one-quarter of its annual revenue from 3PLs, J. Wes Frye, Old Dominion's CFO, said on a recent conference call with analysts. Virtually all of Old Dominion's business with intermediaries comes from "strategic 3PLs," big firms that offer warehousing and distribution and other services that extend beyond transactional activities, said C. Thomas Barnes, president of Con-way Multimodal, a brokerage operating under the banner of Menlo Worldwide Logistics, a large 3PL that does a lot of work with the carrier.
Today, about three-fourths of all LTL business with intermediaries is considered "strategic," with the rest seen as
"transactional," Barnes said. Yet the transactional side is growing faster than the strategic side, an ironic twist given the
carriers' general distaste for working with transactional brokers and 3PLs, Barnes said.
If projections for LTL growth are accurate, there might be more opportunities for 3PL-LTL collaborations. LTL revenue will grow
by 8.1 percent a year through 2018, and will double to $103 billion a year by 2024 from $51.5 billion in 2012, according to ATA
and the Georgia Center data. That would be faster than the projected growth rate for either truckload or private fleet operations.
(Several experts interviewed for this story say that the 2012 numbers are overstated and that total LTL revenue today is actually
closer to $35 billion a year.)
Crowe, who presented the data at an April conference of the Transportation Intermediaries Association (TIA), said demand for
LTL services will continue to grow as improved supply chain technology allows shippers to build smaller-size shipments that move
in shorter-haul ground networks. This reduces inventory-carrying costs by shortening the time a shipper's cash is tied up in the
goods, he said.
Carriers, for their part, see brokers and 3PLs as a source of new shipper business. A growing number of small to mid-size
shippers now work with third parties, and carriers see intermediaries as the best way to tap that shipper market. According to
the consulting firm Armstrong & Associates, about 80 percent of the 100 smallest Fortune 500 companies used 3PLs to some
extent in 2012, up from 65 percent in 2008. About 81 percent of the companies comprising the Fortune 300 to 400 reported
using a 3PL in 2012, up from 71 percent in 2008. Those rates of growth were faster than for companies at the higher end of the
Fortune 500 scale, according to Armstrong.
DIFFERENCES AND DISTINCTIONS
Not all freight is alike, however, and experts caution that brokers and 3PLs accustomed to working with truckload carriers will
need a separate playbook if they take to the LTL field.
Brokering a truckload shipment is relatively simple: Freight moves in a linear fashion from point A to point B. A typical LTL
shipment, by contrast, involves multiple stops and numerous human touches, and carrier tariffs can be tricky to navigate. In
addition, LTL freight must be classified under specific, and sometimes obtuse, commodity codes that are based on various product
characteristics. In short, LTL is everything that truckload isn't.
Experts on a TIA panel said brokers can successfully handle LTL if they understand that LTL's complexity makes it nearly
impossible for brokers and 3PLs to manage each shipment without draining their margins. "LTL is a fantastic niche opportunity. It
is not a [good] niche opportunity if you have to touch every load," Andy Berke, vice president, strategic development for
Riverview, Fla.-based 3PL BlueGrace Logistics, told brokers. Following that path—that is, manually managing each individual LTL
shipment—would result in a broker only making about $30 to $50 a load, Berke said.
The good news, Berke said, is that brokers can "automate the heck out of LTL." Although tools like rate and routing engines can
be expensive to develop and implement, they can yield enormous benefits if done right, he said. "If you can crack the code where
the customer is tendering [the freight] and selecting your provider through you, you are making money in your sleep," Berke told
the group.
Brokers also must know the details of a shipper's products because, unlike truckload, LTL shipments are governed by a phalanx
of classification codes. Carriers reweigh every shipment they receive, and any misclassification identified during that process
means the broker or 3PL must go back to the shipper for more money. Matt Williams, president of Pro Star Logistics, a Salt Lake
City-based 3PL, said the goal is to make it easy for the carrier to execute a shipment and to avoid classification problems. "You
have to understand your shipper's commodity better than when you're shipping via truckload," he said.
YRC, for example, relies heavily on its 3PL partners to ensure the freight they receive is properly classified, Crowe said.
"Intermediaries know exactly what we know about the classification" of freight upon tender, he said. It is the third-party's
responsibility to educate the customer in how to properly classify a shipment, he added.
A CHANGED CLIMATE
Brokers and 3PLs looking to expand into LTL must also recognize that the marketplace has changed dramatically. Four years ago,
with the U.S. economy digging out from the Great Recession and with LTL carriers undercutting each other to grab market share,
space was relatively plentiful and was priced cheaply. The carriers then embarked on a multiyear program of network and equipment
rationalization. Today, truck capacity has tightened, predatory pricing is history, and rates have increased and could go higher
still. Carriers now have little tolerance for potential partners whose commitment doesn't extend beyond searching for the lowest
rate du jour.
"The true kind of price reseller is in trouble," Jack Holmes, president of UPS Freight, the LTL unit of Atlanta-based UPS Inc.,
told attendees of the National Strategic Shippers Transportation Council (NASSTRAC) annual conference in mid-April. Brokers and
3PLs that "don't have relationships [with LTL carriers] will suffer," especially as tightening capacity allows carriers to be more
selective about who they work with, Holmes said.
Even Skinner of Shift recognizes the inherent risks in getting deeply involved with the transactional broker crowd. "You can't
let them beat you up," he said in an interview at the NASSTRAC conference.
At this point, brokers and 3PLs need LTL carriers more than the other way around. The big truckload carriers are building
substantial brokerage operations, a strategy that impacts all brokers but especially those who earn their living through
transactional activity. Even the traditional parcel carriers have gotten into the act. UPS Freight is expanding its truckload and
intermodal brokerage operations as well as an asset-based, dedicated contract carriage service that uses a hybrid of owned and
outsourced equipment.
As big companies muscle in on brokerage in a bid to capture more of a shipper's total spend, many brokers, especially those who
do little more than provide domestic dry van services, may be in trouble if they can't expand their value proposition. Opening up
the LTL channel could be a way for intermediaries to do just that.
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.
A Canadian startup that provides AI-powered logistics solutions has gained $5.5 million in seed funding to support its concept of creating a digital platform for global trade, according to Toronto-based Starboard.
The round was led by Eclipse, with participation from previous backers Garuda Ventures and Everywhere Ventures. The firm says it will use its new backing to expand its engineering team in Toronto and accelerate its AI-driven product development to simplify supply chain complexities.
According to Starboard, the logistics industry is under immense pressure to adapt to the growing complexity of global trade, which has hit recent hurdles such as the strike at U.S. east and gulf coast ports. That situation calls for innovative solutions to streamline operations and reduce costs for operators.
As a potential solution, Starboard offers its flagship product, which it defines as an AI-based transportation management system (TMS) and rate management system that helps mid-sized freight forwarders operate more efficiently and win more business. More broadly, Starboard says it is building the virtual infrastructure for global trade, allowing freight companies to leverage AI and machine learning to optimize operations such as processing shipments in real time, reconciling invoices, and following up on payments.
"This investment is a pivotal step in our mission to unlock the power of AI for our customers," said Sumeet Trehan, Co-Founder and CEO of Starboard. "Global trade has long been plagued by inefficiencies that drive up costs and reduce competitiveness. Our platform is designed to empower SMB freight forwarders—the backbone of more than $20 trillion in global trade and $1 trillion in logistics spend—with the tools they need to thrive in this complex ecosystem."