greyhounds OK, this is how weird it is right now. I buy groceries at Walmart. I order on line and then go pick up my order curbside. An item in my order for today was coffee K-Cups. I didn't get them. But, they're being shipped via FedEx and should arrive at my front door Tuesday. No extra charge. It's nuts.
OK, this is how weird it is right now.
I buy groceries at Walmart. I order on line and then go pick up my order curbside.
An item in my order for today was coffee K-Cups. I didn't get them. But, they're being shipped via FedEx and should arrive at my front door Tuesday. No extra charge.
It's nuts.
Paper products probably aren't going to normalize until 2-3Q of 2022. Possibly sooner, but looking at some indexes I don't see it.
Euclid I have read that our ports must convert to automation in order to keep up with the supply chain shipping. I see that the technology exists as demonstrated by what they are doing in China. Why are our ports not doing the same? Do we have any ports that incorporate the same degree of automation that is seen here in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEr2Ze4Lxqw
LA/LB already use automation; bomb carts and straddlers. Other ports will add automation where the cost make sense. BNSF has a few IM ramps that use automated cranes. Automation doesn't always equate to higher productivity. You have to look at the entire system before spending the amount of capital required for automation. PR videos about China's port automation doesn't reflect port productivity. China spends enormous amounts money to puff up their facade..
Here's an update to current spot rates:
TransPac(Asia Pacific-West Coast) $17,478/FEU Rates are up 0.4% over the previous week
AisaPac via Suez Canal to East Coast of North America $20,115/FEU Rates are down 1% from the previous week.
EuclidThe question is this: Will the heavy fees solve the problem of unreturned containers? If the answer is “No,” then what is the point of the gigantic fees? How are the container ship companies supposed to police the return of containers from the truckers and railroads if those two entities have no skin in the game?
They are supposed to move their empty boxes back home - doesn't matter who else is involved.
If terminals are space constricted because of holding empty boxes - THAT IS THE OCEAN CARRIERS FAULT.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD Euclid The question is this: Will the heavy fees solve the problem of unreturned containers? If the answer is “No,” then what is the point of the gigantic fees? How are the container ship companies supposed to police the return of containers from the truckers and railroads if those two entities have no skin in the game? They are supposed to move their empty boxes back home - doesn't matter who else is involved. If terminals are space constricted because of holding empty boxes - THAT IS THE OCEAN CARRIERS FAULT.
Euclid The question is this: Will the heavy fees solve the problem of unreturned containers? If the answer is “No,” then what is the point of the gigantic fees? How are the container ship companies supposed to police the return of containers from the truckers and railroads if those two entities have no skin in the game?
Is that from the contract language, or is it just your assumption?
Murphy SidingHere's a guy who sees the big picture of supply and demand
Like the old song lyric goes, you get what you accept...
Supporting a broken system by playing into the hands of those determined to exploit your weaknesses, is a recipe for disaster...gotta adapt. Make passable substitutions, restore and rehabilitate instead of buying new, stuff like that. We used to get a lot of old doors in that antique restoration place I worked at before retirement, there are viable alternatives to buying new.
As for the "drive thru only" restaurants, I've written every one to do so, out of my routine...haven't missed them.
Willingness to adapt is crucial, evolve or perish.
EuclidThe customers will seek out altenatives to replace the products they feel are priced too high. Also high demand and rising prices are an enticement for new manufactuerers to enter the market with offers of lower cost products. These will be sold to consumers who have quit buying products that they consider over-priced, and are seeking lower cost alternatives.
Exacto,...you get what you accept.
So back to the inland port model.
It would seem to make sense that using rail to move the containers closer to their destination would reduce the amount of container chassis required. Also, this would allow for the ports to clear out the stockpiled full containers. Stack the containers closer to the destination. Long-Haul OTR movements of containers is a waste of the limited transportation resources.
Fines, Executive Orders, or Unicorn Flatulence is not going to make more drivers or magically produce more container chassis or drivers.
But maybe they do have a plan, the DRIVE-Safe Act wants to lower the Interstate Driving age to 18 from 21. What could go wrong with that?
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/659/text
BaltACDThey are supposed to move their empty boxes back home - doesn't matter who else is involved. If terminals are space constricted because of holding empty boxes - THAT IS THE OCEAN CARRIERS FAULT.
How bigga share of ocean boxes ultimately find their way to an inland destination once on these shores? Vs transloaded into domestic containers before being forwarded to destination?
Surely the ocean carriers cannot be held responsible for domestic containers failing to find their way home?
zugmannHope not. You ordered coffee.
Sing along now!
Chock full o'Nuts is that heavenly coffee,Heavenly coffee, heavenly coffee.Chock full o'Nuts is that heavenly coffee,Better coffee a billionaire's money can't buy.
The Chock full o'Nuts advertising jingle was based on the song, "That Heavenly Feeling", written by Bernie Wayne and Bill Silbert.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Convicted OneSurely the ocean carriers cannot be held responsible for domestic containers failing to find their way home?
Why not? If we fine them and the consumers don't cover it, and the container ship companies refuse, we just ban them from our ports. Easy. Solves the supply chain crisis.
EuclidWhy not?
I think the fine is gonna apply more to containers sitting in the port both before and after the domestic leg of transit, and not to containers occupying chassis in some off site loading dock.
However, If I was a shipping line where my boat has been stopped in an off shore holding pattern for 3 weeks, I'd be mad as a hornet's nest over being fined for "failure" to retrieve empty boxes waiting for me in the port.
Convicted One Euclid Why not? I think the fine is gonna apply more to containers sitting in the port both before and after the domestic leg of transit, and not to containers occupying chassis in some off site loading dock.
Euclid Why not?
I don't understand why that would matter. It is the ship owners who have the money to pay the outlandish fines. I would not be suprised if our fining authority issues an order that says fines cannot be added to the shipping receiver's cost of the goods received. Our Administration has already indicated that they will not tolerate corporations passing their tax increases through to the consumer. How will they prevent that?
Euclid Our Administration has already indicated that they will not tolerate corporations passing their tax increases through to the consumer. How will they prevent that?
Our Administration has already indicated that they will not tolerate corporations passing their tax increases through to the consumer. How will they prevent that?
rdamon Euclid Our Administration has already indicated that they will not tolerate corporations passing their tax increases through to the consumer. How will they prevent that? They can't. After whatever bill is passed they don't care. Third verse same as the first.
They can prevent our corporations from passing tax increases through to consumers by using price controls. And it would not surprise me if they do that. But if they do, I expect it will produce unintended bad consequences.
However, regarding the container ship companies, our government cannot prevent them from passing the cost of fines back to the import receiving customers. But the customers might refuse the purchase of the suddenly inflated cost of imported goods. Then the shipping companies will have to decide whether the business is worthwhile with the loss of revenue caused by the fines. Maybe China will pay the fines rather than lose the export business.
Euclid However, regarding the container ship companies, our government cannot prevent them from passing the cost of fines back to the import receiving customers. But the customers might refuse the purchase of the suddenly inflated cost of imported goods. Then the shipping companies will have to decide whether the business is worthwhile with the loss of revenue caused by the fines. Maybe China will pay the fines rather than lose the export business.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Convicted One BaltACD They are supposed to move their empty boxes back home - doesn't matter who else is involved. If terminals are space constricted because of holding empty boxes - THAT IS THE OCEAN CARRIERS FAULT. How bigga share of ocean boxes ultimately find their way to an inland destination once on these shores? Vs transloaded into domestic containers before being forwarded to destination? Surely the ocean carriers cannot be held responsible for domestic containers failing to find their way home?
BaltACD They are supposed to move their empty boxes back home - doesn't matter who else is involved. If terminals are space constricted because of holding empty boxes - THAT IS THE OCEAN CARRIERS FAULT.
My take on the demurrage video is that it is on loaded containers sitting on the port site waiting to be removed to receivers, whether local or inland. I don't think it's as much about the empty ocean boxes being returned.
From this guy's other video posted earlier, it seems that the ports aren't accepting too many empty ocean boxes. Hence they either get stored at trucking companies' sites, which are getting full, or they stay on the chassis. Meaning equipment (chassis) are sitting with an empty box with no where to go and can't be used to move a loaded box off a port site. The earlier video said only limited number of mty boxes are being accepted and they have to go to the port site where the owner's ships call and can be reloaded.
It reminds me somewhat of the railroads during WW1, when they were only worried about moving loads to the eastern ports and not so much about moving the mtys back to where they needed to go. The story goes that this tied the rail system in knots and led, in part, the the USRA being organized to operate the railroads.
The problem with news coverage, is that they don't tell the whole story. They fixate on one problem, large that it is, but don't go into enough details of the problems all along the supply chain. News likes 30 second, maybe one minute sound bites. No where near enough to tell the whole story.
Jeff
PS. I see a lot of ocean boxes moving to inland destinations. A lot being moved back west. Some are even loaded.
The 'supply chain' is a integrated system - where each link in the chain has its purpose for existing.
The 'fixers' these days are much more of the problem than they are the solution. They tend to think only 'their' identified part of the chain is the one that is the problem without any understanding of where their link fits in the overall chain.
I have no fear that some of the players in the supply chain want the chain to fail - for their own selfish reasons.
Circular firing squad: China, consumers ships, ports, truckers, rails and when in doubt, blame the government.
jeffhergertMy take on the demurrage video is that it is on loaded containers sitting on the port site waiting to be removed to receivers, whether local or inland. I don't think it's as much about the empty ocean boxes being returned. From this guy's other video posted earlier, it seems that the ports aren't accepting too many empty ocean boxes. Hence they either get stored at trucking companies' sites, which are getting full, or they stay on the chassis. Meaning equipment (chassis) are sitting with an empty box with no where to go and can't be used to move a loaded box off a port site. The earlier video said only limited number of mty boxes are being accepted and they have to go to the port site where the owner's ships call and can be reloaded. It reminds me somewhat of the railroads during WW1, when they were only worried about moving loads to the eastern ports and not so much about moving the mtys back to where they needed to go. The story goes that this tied the rail system in knots and led, in part, the the USRA being organized to operate the railroads. The problem with news coverage, is that they don't tell the whole story. They fixate on one problem, large that it is, but don't go into enough details of the problems all along the supply chain. News likes 30 second, maybe one minute sound bites. No where near enough to tell the whole story. Jeff PS. I see a lot of ocean boxes moving to inland destinations. A lot being moved back west. Some are even loaded
Thanks for your thoughtful, and detailed reply.
I originally believed exactly what you propose in your very first sentence.
Somewhere along the line, perhaps in an earlier thread, the idea was advanced that the real bottleneck is the result of lazy warehouse workers laying off work in their eviction proof hideaways and spending their stimulus checks on life's luxuries, when they should instead be back at work unloading the containers that are detaining this country's limited supply of chassis.
And it appeared to me that Euclid might have (mistakenly) concluded that the fines being discussed in this thread and proposed to be directed at ocean carriers, was in some way intended to address all those stranded chassis.
And as the portion of your post which I have emboldened clearly identifies, I think we have a muddling of issues at work. There has been some obfuscation, perhaps by accident, perhaps with intent.
But personally, I believe the fines to be directed at the ocean carriers, will be limited to boxes physically sitting on port real estate, all those lazy warehouse workers notwithstanding, they simply are outside the jurisdiction of the port authorities.
As far as empty containers being returned to the ocean carriers, what is the standard practice? Are they plucked off truck chassis as soon as they return to the port from inland destination, and placed directly on ships for return to asia? Or are they first removed from the trucks, stored in a staging area, and then gang-loaded back to ships enmasse?
Not knowing, but the latter makes more sense to me, expecially in view of the widely reported "chassis shortage" .
And if the latter is indeed the case, then it wouldn't surprise me if fines are to be levied against empty boxes the ocean carriers have failed to retrieve in a timely fashion, as well.
I guess it all depends where the "slack" was originally designed into the system. It just seems unlikely to me that there would be lines of trucks backed up waiting on their turns to have their empty boxes placed directly on a waiting ship.
Convicted One jeffhergert My take on the demurrage video is that it is on loaded containers sitting on the port site waiting to be removed to receivers, whether local or inland. I don't think it's as much about the empty ocean boxes being returned. From this guy's other video posted earlier, it seems that the ports aren't accepting too many empty ocean boxes. Hence they either get stored at trucking companies' sites, which are getting full, or they stay on the chassis. Meaning equipment (chassis) are sitting with an empty box with no where to go and can't be used to move a loaded box off a port site. The earlier video said only limited number of mty boxes are being accepted and they have to go to the port site where the owner's ships call and can be reloaded. It reminds me somewhat of the railroads during WW1, when they were only worried about moving loads to the eastern ports and not so much about moving the mtys back to where they needed to go. The story goes that this tied the rail system in knots and led, in part, the the USRA being organized to operate the railroads. The problem with news coverage, is that they don't tell the whole story. They fixate on one problem, large that it is, but don't go into enough details of the problems all along the supply chain. News likes 30 second, maybe one minute sound bites. No where near enough to tell the whole story. Jeff PS. I see a lot of ocean boxes moving to inland destinations. A lot being moved back west. Some are even loaded Thanks for your thoughtful, and detailed reply. I originally believed exactly what you propose in your very first sentence. Somewhere along the line, perhaps in an earlier thread, the idea was advanced that the real bottleneck is the result of lazy warehouse workers laying off work in their eviction proof hideaways and spending their stimulus checks on life's luxuries, when they should instead be back at work unloading the containers that are detaining this country's limited supply of chassis. And it appeared to me that Euclid might have (mistakenly) concluded that the fines being discussed in this thread and proposed to be directed at ocean carriers, was in some way intended to address all those stranded chassis. And as the portion of your post which I have emboldened clearly identifies, I think we have a muddling of issues at work. There has been some obfuscation, perhaps by accident, perhaps with intent. But personally, I believe the fines to be directed at the ocean carriers, will be limited to boxes physically sitting on port real estate, all those lazy warehouse workers notwithstanding, they simply are outside the jurisdiction of the port authorities. As far as empty containers being returned to the ocean carriers, what is the standard practice? Are they plucked off truck chassis as soon as they return to the port from inland destination, and placed directly on ships for return to asia? Or are they first removed from the trucks, stored in a staging area, and then gang-loaded back to ships enmasse? Not knowing, but the latter makes more sense to me, expecially in view of the widely reported "chassis shortage" . And if the latter is indeed the case, then it wouldn't surprise me if fines are to be levied against empty boxes the ocean carriers have failed to retrieve in a timely fashion, as well. I guess it all depends where the "slack" was originally designed into the system. It just seems unlikely to me that there would be lines of trucks backed up waiting on their turns to have their empty boxes placed directly on a waiting ship.
jeffhergert My take on the demurrage video is that it is on loaded containers sitting on the port site waiting to be removed to receivers, whether local or inland. I don't think it's as much about the empty ocean boxes being returned. From this guy's other video posted earlier, it seems that the ports aren't accepting too many empty ocean boxes. Hence they either get stored at trucking companies' sites, which are getting full, or they stay on the chassis. Meaning equipment (chassis) are sitting with an empty box with no where to go and can't be used to move a loaded box off a port site. The earlier video said only limited number of mty boxes are being accepted and they have to go to the port site where the owner's ships call and can be reloaded. It reminds me somewhat of the railroads during WW1, when they were only worried about moving loads to the eastern ports and not so much about moving the mtys back to where they needed to go. The story goes that this tied the rail system in knots and led, in part, the the USRA being organized to operate the railroads. The problem with news coverage, is that they don't tell the whole story. They fixate on one problem, large that it is, but don't go into enough details of the problems all along the supply chain. News likes 30 second, maybe one minute sound bites. No where near enough to tell the whole story. Jeff PS. I see a lot of ocean boxes moving to inland destinations. A lot being moved back west. Some are even loaded
One thing to remember about scheduled ocean going liner service. For the most part the schedules call for weekly, bi-weekly or monthly shipping dates at any particular terminal. Virtually nothing arrives in a terminal and is placed on a vessel that departs the terminal on the same day. Shipments, loads or empties, will arrive at the Terminal in advance of the shipping lines scheduled date - and then boxes for that sailing will be handled to and from the vessel.
Where the terminals get in trouble is having too many boxes on the ground and no space or chassis to off load the incoming arrivals. The typical juggler's conundrum - one on the ship, one on the ground and one in the air - keep juggling.
Thanks Balt,
And I agree, part of the mentality that originally determined "hey, I can off shore my source and take money that originally supported American manufacturing jobs, and put it in my own pocket instead" was based heavily on the premise that many things have to go smoothly, ALL THE TIME.
And when they don't, then blame the railroads, blame the warehouse workers, blame the hoarding consumers etc.
jeffhergertThe problem with news coverage, is that they don't tell the whole story.
I think they too have a tendency to report "worst case" instances as though the were the norm.
Just because one ship was held in an off shore holding pattern for 4 weeks, doesn't mean there is a 4 week wait for ALL incoming ships, etc.
How does the movement of chassis work? If BNSF brings back empty containers from the ACME ship line, are they on chassis owned by ACME and can only ship out with ACME containers?
Convicted OneAnd it appeared to me that Euclid might have (mistakenly) concluded that the fines being discussed in this thread and proposed to be directed at ocean carriers, was in some way intended to address all those stranded chassis. And as the portion of your post which I have emboldened clearly identifies, I think we have a muddling of issues at work. There has been some obfuscation, perhaps by accident, perhaps with intent. But personally, I believe the fines to be directed at the ocean carriers, will be limited to boxes physically sitting on port real estate, all those lazy warehouse workers notwithstanding, they simply are outside the jurisdiction of the port authorities.
The fines/fees have been reported with more than one description of how they work. Somewhere a few pages back, I posted a link to a guy who discusses shipping. With enough determination, I could find that post, but what the video said is this:
The fines are much larger than what was reported first in the news, which was $100 per day, so $3000 for 30 days. The link I posted says the fines are much higher than that. He says that for 30 days, the fines would accrue to $46,500.
There has been much discussion of a shortage of chassis, but the link I posted says the fines are only for the return of containers, and nothing to do with chassis. And the container fines will be levied only against the companies that run the contain ships.
I have had to watch that video about 8 times because he tends to be hard to follow. I have yet to find anyting in that video that confirms the source of his claim that says the fines accrue exponentially to reach $46,500 in 30 days for one container.
He also said that the fines are not in effect yet, and must wait for implementation for about a month.
Everything about this supply chain story has multiple interpretations. I don't think any of the information is reliable.
Murphy SidingHow does the movement of chassis work? If BNSF brings back empty containers from the ACME ship line, are they on chassis owned by ACME and can only ship out with ACME containers?
BNSF being a railroad would not be bringing 'chassis' into a terminal - they would be bringing boxes, without chassis, into the terminal on rail cars.
Truckers are the ones hauling boxes into and out of the terminal on chassis. I am not familiar with the rules concerning chassis use and/or interchage between chassis owners. Chassis are a big chunk of investment and the investor (whomever that is) deserves a return on their investment.
BaltACDBNSF being a railroad would not be bringing 'chassis' into a terminal - they would be bringing boxes, without chassis, into the terminal on rail cars.
It was not uncommon to have a couple cars of empty chasis stacked up on top of one another in intermodal trains.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.