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.
Those looking for a "steady as she goes" transport climate should steer clear of parcel. E-commerce's explosive growth has translated into enormous traffic gains. There are all sorts of new ways to get packages into people's hands. Meanwhile, shippers in the business-to-business (B2B) segment continue to face escalating rates and ancillary charges as giants UPS Inc. and FedEx Corp., which dominate the B2B parcel shipping world, push for ever-higher revenue.
Parcel consultants like Rob Martinez, all of whom held executive positions with various carriers before hanging out their shingles, frame themselves as the shippers' wingmen. Martinez has logged 25 years in the business, the last 15 running his own shop. Like other consultants, Martinez said his firm can help shippers with a myriad of functions, including assisting—to some degree—in contract negotiations. In an interview with DC Velocity Executive Editor Mark B. Solomon, Martinez said the deck is stacked against B2B shippers and it will take creativity and extra effort (and a little outside help) to win at the table.
Q: Several years ago, UPS and FedEx said they would no longer work directly with parcel consultants. How have consultants worked around that edict, and have the carriers backed off from that hard line?
A: UPS and FedEx will work with third-party consultants for matters unrelated to pricing, provided the consultant, shipper, and carrier sign a three-way nondisclosure agreement. However, the restriction remains in place for rate negotiations and third party-led bids. We've heard that some firms have closed their doors, and others have pivoted to other services. Even if consultants aren't allowed to negotiate pricing directly with the carriers, the good ones can still offer tremendous value in areas like distribution analysis, dimensional pricing and accessorial impact studies, RFP (request for proposal) templates, negotiation strategies, DC site studies, modal/carrier optimization, automation recommendations, and invoice auditing.
Q: UPS has struggled to master its peak season operations in the wake of rapid growth in online shipping. It's been suggested the company choose between driving market share through aggressive pricing and focusing on improving its return on invested capital at the expense of market share. Given the current landscape, what would be your recommendation to the company?
A: In 2013, UPS and FedEx dealt with a deluge of packages tendered during Christmas week, severe weather conditions in several U.S. states, and an abbreviated peak shipping season. An estimated 2 million packages were delivered late. UPS delivered exceptional service last peak, but it came at a cost of $200 million over 2013. UPS is well down the road in planning for Christmas 2015. While it will continue to assume the burden of higher costs associated with holiday deliveries, it will also strive to recover costs from its customers. For example, high-volume e-commerce shippers will be assessed a "peak season" residential surcharge this year.
Q: As we speak, UPS and FedEx are a couple of months into their programs to impose dimensional weight pricing on packages measuring less than three cubic feet, which is a large chunk of their mix. Are parcel shippers changing their packaging strategies, or will they grin, bear it, and pay up?
A: At this time, many shippers have been slow to analyze cost increases attributed to dimensional pricing. Shippers will find that package optimization carries benefits such as reduced fuel consumption and vehicle emissions. Some will enjoy lower transportation costs. For many, however, there will be significant rate increases. We estimate, on average, a 17-percent rate increase on packages affected by the new policies.
Q: Much has been made of UPS and FedEx's dominance of the B2B parcel market. But B2C (business-to-consumer) shipping has become a larger share of the overall mix. In B2C, there is strong competition from the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and possibly from the likes of Amazon.com, which may establish a dedicated shipping network. Given the different dynamics of B2C, are competitive concerns about the FedEx-UPS duopoly overstated?
A: First off, Amazon is decades away from being a significant competitor to the national private carriers. In fact, it may never reach that level. USPS is a formidable competitor in B2C. However, though USPS plays in B2B, that segment will continue to be ruled by FedEx and UPS because their networks and systems do the best job of serving that market. Unfortunately for shippers, FedEx and UPS are focused on revenue and yield management, which means finding more ways to extract money from their customers.
Q: Do you see regional parcel carriers moving the needle in a significant way? Is there a marketplace need—or is it viable from a business standpoint—for a national network knitted together by the various regionals?
A: The regionals are growing because they offer alternatives to FedEx and UPS. Regionals have simple contracts with more flexible terms and volume commitments, 10 to 40 percent rate savings over FedEx and UPS, more favorable dimensional divisors, and fewer surcharges. That said, regionals haven't moved the needle in a significant way. Shipware estimates they account for less than 4 percent of U.S. parcel volume. Our recent survey on shippers' use of regional carriers reveals that less than 30 percent of high-volume shippers use them. Most of those allocate less than 10 percent of their shipments to the regionals.
A "national regional network" is not going to happen anytime soon. There are too many problems to work out. Who owns package custody? How are systems to be unified for tracking, reporting, and invoicing? What if a carrier cannot handle heavy freight? Most importantly, how is revenue allocated so it makes sense to all parties?
Instead, what is evolving are strategic partnerships between a handful of regional carriers in the areas of business development, lead sharing, and shared operations. An example of the latter is a warehouse-sharing agreement in Pennsylvania between Pitt-Ohio and [regional parcel carrier] Eastern Connection.
Q: If you were speaking to a roomful of parcel shippers on ways to mitigate the price increases that are in place or are looming, what advice would you give?
A: Shippers must utilize multiple concurrent strategies. These include improving pricing through rate negotiations, optimizing package routes by mode/carrier, implementing least-cost/best-way automation, reducing packaging costs, minimizing returns, zone skipping, and exploring postal and regional options.
Shippers should work with carriers to reduce the carrier's operational costs. Carriers link their pricing to the costs of supporting a customer. Shippers should identify components of their business that are raising their cost profile and work with the carrier to reduce its investment in handling the business.
Another approach is to think regionally. It's no secret that many businesses are migrating from globally centralized distribution to multiregional DCs in an effort to put product closer to the customer and reduce transportation costs and transit times. Companies that do both effectively enjoy an enormous competitive advantage in the marketplace.
Also explore the many shipping alternatives out there. Many shippers sole source to FedEx or UPS for convenience or to maximize revenue-based incentives with the carriers. They may forget that cost reductions and service improvements can be achieved by adding more service providers to the carrier mix.
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.