USTR asks comments on suspension of port fees

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) on Tuesday announced a public comment process on the proposed suspension of port fees on Chinese vessels.

The action first announced in April followed the results of a federal investigation that found China leveraged unfair advantages to build a dominant position in global shipping and shipbuilding. The fees went into effect Oct. 14 at the rate of approximately $50 per net ton of capacity per ship per U.S. voyage.

China retaliated with port fees on U.S.-registered ships and shipping companies that had substantial U.S. investment.

The fees — part of an initiative by the Trump administration to blunt China’s maritime dominance and revive U.S. shipbuilding — set off a scramble by carriers to shift China-built ships away from U.S. services, or to re-register vessels in other countries such as Singapore and India. Atlantic Container Line, owned by the Grimaldi Group of Italy, re-registered a vessel under the U.S. flag. Washington earlier made an exception to the fees for empty ships loading American agricultural and other bulk exports.

Plans to suspend the fees for one year were part of a wide-ranging trade agreement that came out of meetings between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping earlier this month in South Korea.

The pause is scheduled to take effect Nov. 10. The public can submit written comments here by 5 p.m. Nov. 7. 

Find more articles by Stuart Chirls here.

Related coverage:

New trade  deals, and ‘tenuous stability’ for ocean freight

Maersk’s surprising strategy amid falling freight rates

Shares of largest US container line buoyed by tariff outlook

Japan’s ocean lines face profit decline amid tariff impact

PlusAI, International and NVIDIA move closer to autonomous truck commercialization

PlusAI autonomous semi-truck, model 1003SA, displayed at a trade show booth with Plus branding, sensors on the cab, and USDOT 3173394 visible.

Development of Level 4 autonomous trucks is moving closer to full commercialization, according to a recent partnership update among trucking original equipment manufacturer International, autonomous truck technology maker PlusAI and NVIDIA.

These new factory-built vehicles will be built by International, with PlusAI providing SuperDrive, the virtual driver. The AI computing power comes from NVIDIA, whose DRIVE AGX Thor compute platform is powered by custom-built Blackwell chips specifically designed for AI workloads to make safe autonomous driving possible.

“We are excited about the advancements we’re making in our autonomy program with our global autonomy partner PlusAI. Building on our fleet trials in Texas, the collaboration with NVIDIA and PlusAI is an important step on our path to production,” said Tobias Glitterstam, senior vice president and chief strategy and transformation officer at International, in a press release.

The collaboration between International and PlusAI was announced earlier in September and involved customer fleet trials using second-generation autonomous trucks. The pilots took place along the Interstate 35 corridor in Texas that runs between Laredo and Dallas.

Glitterstam added that the combination of automotive-grade computing with AI-native autonomous driving software will develop real value and reliability for many of International’s customers.

The collaboration also addresses the scalability requirements for widespread adoption of autonomous trucking technology. This is part of a wider Traton partnership with a later planned expansion throughout Europe as PlusAI looks toward full autonomous vehicle commercialization in 2027.

“By collaborating with International and NVIDIA, we’re enabling scalable, factory-built autonomy designed to meet the real-world performance and safety expectations of fleets. We have to build for a future with thousands of self-driving trucks on the road and that requires not just cutting-edge AI-native autonomous driving technology, but relentless rigor in safety, reliability, and excellence in large-scale manufacturing,” said David Liu, CEO and co-founder at PlusAI.

NVIDIA’s role in providing the advanced computing infrastructure is crucial for the success of the partnership. “NVIDIA DRIVE AGX Thor delivers the compute performance, functional safety, and scalability required for production-ready autonomous trucks,” said Rishi Dhall, vice president of automotive at NVIDIA, in the release.

This comes as PlusAI recently announced in June that it is going public via a special purpose acquisition company merger with Churchill Capital Corp. IX.

RXO faces a rate squeeze: what it means for the 3PL

The word that came up repeatedly from RXO management during the 3PL’s earnings call with analysts was “squeeze.”

RXO is facing a squeeze created by contractual rates the brokerage locked in at lower numbers and a suddenly rising level of rates needed to provide capacity into those obligations. And while the call with analysts may have been about RXO (NYSE: RXO), it is reasonable to assume it’s the same predicament that much of the 3PL sector finds itself in at present.

The earnings call came soon after RXO released its third quarter earnings, a report that had few pieces of positive news. RXO lost money on a net income basis again, and Wall Street reacted by sending the stock lower. 

But during the call, CEO Drew Wilkerson laid out the scenario for the difficult market that helped lead to the weak earnings. And while he said RXO was “well positioned” to take advantage of a turnaround or stabilization, he made it clear that the ongoing fourth quarter is not going to be that time.

“We expect the squeeze dynamic to intensify into the fourth quarter,” Wilkerson said. “Contrary to our assumptions on last quarter’s call, the market tightened in September. Capacity began exiting in certain regions, driven primarily by regulatory changes in enforcement.”

The increase has not been huge, but it’s enough to create problems for 3PLs tied in to higher contract rates.

The SONAR National Truckload Index data series, which just measures linehaul rates without fuel, was $1.68 per mile on a national basis at the midway point of the third quarter. More recently it has been $1.80 per mile, and was $1.72 by the end of the quarter. 

Wilkerson added that about two-thirds of the freight handled by RXO in the quarter came from regions that saw an increase in rates. 

The rate increase came against a backdrop of weaker volume, according to Wilkerson. “Buy rates increased faster than our contractual sales rates with no meaningful corresponding increase in accretive spot opportunities,” he said.

Wilkerson suggested that the changes in the market–with capacity exiting in part because of the crackdown on non-domiciled and non-English speaking drivers–is not temporary. The shifts, he said, “have the potential to be one of the largest structural changes to truckload supply since deregulation,” which took place at the start of the 1980’s.

Higher for longer

As a result, Wilkerson said, the freight market might be on the cusp of a “higher for longer” period. “If the regulatory changes hold and enforcement continues, we believe a significant amount of truckload capacity will permanently exit the market,” Wilkerson said.

The call took place after the weak earnings report that followed by about a week a strong earnings report, the latest in a string of them, from C.H. Robinson (NASDAQ: CHRW). RXO, after the acquisition of Coyote Logistics last year, described itself as the third-largest freight brokerage. Ahead of it would be C.H Robinson and TQL Logistics, which is privately-held.

Comparing various financial metrics between C.H. Robinson and RXO is not a good look for the latter. That helped lead Brandon Oglenski of Barclays Investment Bank to ask Wilkerson on the call about the continued lagging performance at RXO.

“This is going to come off a little critical, but I think it’s probably for the betterment of everyone on the call,” Oglenski said.

He noted that the guidance for adjusted EBITDA in the fourth quarter, reduced from earlier estimates, is down about 40% year on year. “And that’s a year into Coyote,” Oglenski said. “We thought Coyote was going to be transformative. Investors are trying to look for more tangible actions.”

Coyote going well, except for the finances

Wilkerson said the Coyote acquisition has “gone extremely well” as measured by the staff members integrated into RXO, the customers who have come on board and the adoption of joint technology. “But the financial results are not where they need to be,” he added.

The CEO tied some of the problems back to the decision the company made on pricing coming into the 2025 market, numbers that are now a growing issue given the sudden rise in freight rates. “I made the wrong call on that one, and that is something that has impacted overall volumes,” Wilkerson said. “I look forward to us getting back to the days of where we are the market leader from a growth standpoint of taking market share. Clearly, 2025 is not where we want to be overall.”

The projected downturn in the fourth quarter EBITDA to $20 million to $30 million comes after a third quarter performance of $32 million and $38 million in the second quarter. Brokerage volume is expected to decline by a “low single-digit percentage,” the company said. The gross margin is projected to be between 12% and 13% in the fourth quarter. It was 16.5% in the third quarter.

The decline in quarterly EBITDA expected for the fourth quarter is tied closely to an expected drop in RXO’s last mile business. Wilkerson said that decline is counter-seasonal between the two quarters.

Big and bulky is sliding

“While we posted another quarter of impressive double digit growth in the third quarter (in Last Mile) since Labor Day, we’ve seen a weakening in demand for big and bulky goods,” Wilkerson said.”

Whereas C.H. Robinson gives a headcount figure each quarter, RXO does not. But the call seemed to have a defensive aspect to it from management, as they came back several times to their own cost cuts that have not received as much publicity as that at C.H. Robinson.

Wilkerson said brokerage headcount in the third quarter was down about 15% from the corresponding quarter of 2024. 

The news in the earnings release about cost cuts was that RXO will undertake a new round of them that is expected to yield $30 million. 

In the slide presentation released in conjunction with the earnings, management laid out the total cost cuts it says it has implemented since RXO was spun off from XPO in 2022: $65 million described as “post-spin”; $70 million in synergies with Coyote; and the $30 million announced Thursday which was said to be coming from “increasing operational efficiency, automating key processes and leveraging technology.”

C.H. Robinson also has touted its adoption of AI in its own cost reductions. RXO management made sure to use the earnings call to highlight what it’s done on that front as well.

“Our actions to date, including our investments in technology, have already yielded substantial productivity gains and brokers productivity increased by 19% over the last 12 months and by 38% over the last two years,” he said. “These are sticky changes to our business that will yield benefits in the future.”

More articles by John Kingston

DAT execs in two forums discuss how it seeks to reshape the freight sector

NMFTA’s freight classification overhaul: surprising shipper preparedness

Beautiful women, open doors and drivers: trucking cybersecurity risks proliferate

Texas supply chain sector hit by more than 920 layoffs

More than 920 supply chain-related workers across Texas are facing layoffs as companies navigate contract losses, production consolidation and weakening consumer demand, according to state Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) filings.

The job cuts span a wide range of employers — including food processors, packaging manufacturers, greenhouse producers and crude oil haulers — underscoring the pressure on labor-intensive segments of the supply chain that rely on steady volume and high asset utilization.

Flagstone Foods LLC, 225 workers

Flagstone Foods, the parent company of Emerald Nuts, plans to lay off about 225 workers at its El Paso facility by the end of the year as part of a company-wide restructuring, according to a state notice. 

The snack manufacturer said it will shift production to facilities in Robersonville, North Carolina, and Dothan, Alabama, resulting in a phased shutdown of the affected El Paso positions.

Congo LLC, 155 workers

Congo Brands, the company behind Prime Hydration and Alani Nu, plans to lay off 155 employees that work out of the firm’s Lewisville location, according to a notice filed with the state.

Congo Brands, headquartered in Louisville, Kentucky, is a consumer-packaged goods company focused on developing, launching, and scaling beverage and nutrition brands.

Eden Green Technology, 102 workers

Eden Green Technology, a vertical farming company based in Cleburne, Texas, will close its operations on Dec. 13, resulting in 102 job cuts, according to a state WARN notice. 

The company, which supplied fresh leafy greens and herbs to Walmart and other regional retailers, announced the closure after expanding production in recent years. 

Natura PCR, 88 workers

Natura PCR laid off 88 workers in October from its film recycling facility in Waller, due to poor market conditions and low demand for its recycled plastic pellets, the company said in a state notice.

Natura PCR is part of Houston-based Waste Management Inc. 

Pure Hothouse Foods, 80 workers

Pure Hothouse Foods LLC is closing a plant and distribution center in San Antonio, which will result in 80 employees being laid off.

The company said the layoffs are part of consolidation measures and will relocate production to its facility in Edinburg.

The layoffs will be finalized by Dec. 31. The company is a supplier of greenhouse-grown produce.

M&M Manufacturing, 75 workers

M&M Manufacturing, which produces sheet metal products for air conditioning units, is shutting down a factory in Houston. The layoffs, which include six truck drivers, are scheduled to begin on Dec. 15.

Firebird Bulk Carriers, 74 workers

Firebird Bulk Carriers will lay off 74 employees across several locations in the state by the end of the year, according to a layoff notice. The job cuts include 59 truck drivers.

Firebird Bulk Carriers said it initiated the layoffs after losing contracts and experiencing increased insurance costs. (Photo: Firebird Bulk Carrriers)

The reductions affect terminals in George West, Carrizo Springs, Bryan, Dilley, Dayton, Tarzan and Victoria. The layoffs will be finalized by the end of December.

In a state WARN notice, the company said the “reduction in its workforce due to an unforeseeable business circumstance, which is the recent loss of one-third of our contracts, together with the unexpected and unforeseen increase in our required insurance premiums.”

Houston-based Firebird Bulk Carriers crude provides oil transportation services. The company has 176 trucks and 128 drivers according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Tekni-Plex, 64 workers

Tekni-Plex Inc. ceased most of its operations at an egg carton manufacturing plant in Dallas, eliminating 64 jobs, according to a state filing. The layoffs will be finalized by Dec. 26.

Apogee Architectural Metals, 58 workers

Apogee Architectural Metals, a division of Apogee Enterprises, announced it is closing a production facility and laying off 58 workers in Mesquite. 

The closure of the production facility will be completed by Jan. 3. Minneapolis-based Apogee Enterprises is a provider of architectural products and services.

Why shippers are consolidating their tech stack for long-term growth

Following the pandemic-era logistics boom, shippers found themselves drowning in technology. The rush to digitize supply chains brought an explosion of new tools, each claiming to solve a critical problem, from delivery visibility to customer communication. However, as many soon learned, having more platforms didn’t always mean greater efficiency. Instead, it exacerbated common problems of complexity, fragmented data, redundant systems, and silos that slowed down the very networks they were meant to optimize.

Now, the tide is turning. A growing number of shippers are taking a hard look at their logistics tech stacks and finding that less can, in fact, be more. The next phase of FreightTech isn’t about adding tools; it’s about integrating intelligence.

“We’re seeing customers consolidate and deprecate other platforms once they get the right solution,” says Bill Catania, founder and CEO of OneRail, the Orlando-based delivery orchestration platform. “In some cases, we’ve seen as many as four systems replaced.”

This movement toward platform consolidation marks a major inflection point for the logistics industry. As costs rise and margins tighten, shippers are recognizing that a fragmented tech stack drives inefficiency.

Systems built for single functions, rate shopping, customer notifications, or fleet management often fail to share data fluidly, creating blind spots in visibility and costing valuable time and money.

“The reality is, more solutions mean more data fragmentation and less fluidity in the supply chain,” says Catania. “There’s a real need to solve a broader array of problems through one platform instead of several partial ones.”

That need for unification stems from hard lessons learned during the pandemic. When disruptions hit, many shippers layered on software quickly to plug immediate gaps.

Some shippers now find themselves juggling multiple courier networks, driver tracking apps, and homegrown dispatch tools that don’t talk to each other.

It’s becoming a common trend as case studies are more commonly showing platform consolidation. EFC International showed how a North American manufacturing client had over 100 fastener‑commodity suppliers, multiple ERPs, many SKUs, and logistics inefficiencies. By consolidating suppliers, rationalizing SKUs, and fully integrating an ERP system, they were able to solve these problems. 

According to Catania, consolidation isn’t just about cutting costs; it’s about decision-making agility. “Shippers shouldn’t think about shipping terms as static,” he explains. “They need a system that can tell them, dynamically, what’s best for a specific shipment based on cost, SLA, and service-level performance. That’s what drives efficiency.”

The challenge, however, often extends beyond technology into organizational boundaries. As shippers start to narrow down their logistics stack, questions arise over who owns which system and who can make the call to retire a platform. 

In many companies, separate departments have implemented overlapping technologies for different parts of the shipping journey, customer experience, fulfillment, and fleet operations, without a unified strategy.

That fragmentation has paved the way for FreightTech platforms that don’t just add features, but replace the stack entirely. 

OneRail is among the solutions leading that shift, integrating the full delivery lifecycle, from order routing and rate optimization to tracking, proof of delivery, and payment, under one roof. “We act as an intermediary,” Catania explains. “Our platform handles the payment to the courier, the shipment execution, and the customer experience. Everything flows through one system.”

This approach highlights a broader evolution in FreightTech, from app-based logistics to platform-based orchestration. Rather than relying on a patchwork of niche applications, shippers are moving toward unified ecosystems that aggregate data, automate decisions, and provide end-to-end visibility.

That consolidation also sets the stage for the next leap forward: intelligent automation. 

When it comes to the use of AI within platform consolidation, Catania says OneRail began investing heavily in artificial intelligence several years ago, and those efforts are now paying dividends. “When we built the platform, it was designed to learn from every delivery,” he explains. “It understands demand cycles, courier performance by geography, and can make routing decisions based on data. The impact is in removing the mundane. That’s where AI delivers the most value.”

For shippers navigating an increasingly complex environment, that kind of intelligence is invaluable. But as Catania cautions, “It’s getting harder as a shipper to know what’s real and what’s not. The best evidence for AI is in the right place, where it’s replacing manual tasks and driving measurable performance gains.”

The future of FreightTech, then, isn’t about who has the most features; it’s about who integrates best. Shippers that are embracing consolidation not as a cost-cutting measure, but as a foundation for smarter, faster, more adaptive supply chains have set themselves up for the greatest success. 

“The old way,” Catania says, “can end up being the most expensive. Consolidation isn’t about taking something away—it’s about unlocking what’s next.”

New trade  deals, and ‘tenuous stability’ for ocean freight

While China and the United States made recent breakthroughs in trade and shipping agreements, there are few indicators of a resurgence coming to the trans-Pacific anytime soon.

Lingering uncertainty has seen ocean carriers seek higher freight prices through general rate increases amid weaker demand.

Eastbound rates from Asia to the U.S. West Coast fell 1% to $1,999 per forty foot equivalent unit (FEU) in the latest week, according to the Freightos Baltic Index. Asia-U.S. East Coast prices increased 4% to $3,628 per FEU.

The talks between President Donald Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in South Korea yielded not only a pause in the tariff war but also in the onerous U.S. port fees that would have hit China’s Cosco (002401.SZ) and OOCL (0316.HK) with millions of dollars in charges for calling U.S. ports.   

“For the container market, the port call fee pauses will mostly mean a sense of relief for Chinese carriers who were facing significant costs if these surcharges had remained in place,” wrote research head Judah Levine of Freightos, in an update. “Operators of U.S.-linked container vessels calling in China will welcome the pause too, though these represent a much smaller slice of the market. It is possible non-Chinese carriers will keep some of their adjustments to deployments of China-built vessels in place just in case the restrictions are restored on short notice.”

Levine said it was unlikely the China-U.S. deescalation would fuel a sudden surge in demand on the trans-Pacific freight demand.

“About two-thirds of all exports from China to the U.S. face tariffs of up to about 25% put in place during the first Trump administration. With these coming on top of the now 20% tariff baseline on all Chinese exports, tariffs on China are still significantly higher than on other countries.”

Demand could also be damped by importers diversifying their sourcing away from China who will probably continue to do so, he said, along with frontloading that made for an early peak season and the typically slow months of November and December.

Uncertainty and volatility could return in the short term after the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case challenging Trump’s use of emergency powers to levy tariffs, but a ruling might not come until June. Concurrently, trade barriers remain as Washington continues to roll out sectoral tariffs facilitated by other areas of trade law.

“Supply chain stakeholders have more certainty and stability regarding the tariff landscape at the moment, and possibly for the next 12 months, than at any point so far in 2025,” Levine said. “This albeit tenuous stability could mean that for 2026 we won’t see the frontloading and start-and-stop ocean volumes that we saw this year, suggesting a return to seasonality for freight markets, even if tariffs mean higher costs to importers.”

November GRIs by carrier saw last week’s stable prices rise for now.

Daily rates for trans-Pacific containers to the West Coast have jumped $1,000 per FEU to $2,962 per FEU so far this week to levels last seen in July, said Levine. But he noted published reports that said carriers are offering much lower rates amid weak demand and prices to the East Coast have already fallen about $100 per FEU this week, “suggesting that rate increases on this lane did not take at all.” 

Asia-Europe daily prices are up about $300 to $2,500 per FEU; rates to the Mediterranean have risen $500 to about $2,800 per FEU.

“Carriers will likely only succeed in maintaining these price increases or in keeping rates from slipping back to lows hit in mid-October, if they are able to adjust and keep capacity level with likely easing demand via blanked sailings,” Levine said. Improved volumes y/y and persistent congestion at European ports hasn’t stopped Asia-Europe rates from falling more than 40% lower than a year ago, “suggesting capacity growth is responsible for overall downward pressure on rates even as Red Sea diversions continue.”

Find more articles by Stuart Chirls here.

Related coverage:

Maersk’s surprising strategy amid falling freight rates

Shares of largest US container line buoyed by tariff outlook

Japan’s ocean lines face profit decline amid tariff impact

Panama Canal fights drought with $8.5B plan to secure future trade

Yellow’s $137M-plus lawsuit against Teamsters revived

A YRC tractor with a Roadway trailer at a warehouse

A federal appeals court has reinstated defunct Yellow Corp.’s $137-million-plus lawsuit against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. The decision overturns a previous dismissal by a lower court, allowing the former less-than-truckload carrier to pursue its breach-of-contract case.

A Wednesday decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit remanded the case back to a federal district court in Kansas. Yellow can now amend its complaint against the union, which it claims deliberately blocked a restructuring dubbed “One Yellow,” a plan the company aserts was required for its survival.

Running out of cash, Yellow sued the union in June 2023, saying the labor organization didn’t have the authority to stop a proposed change of operations. Phase 2 of One Yellow would have allowed the company to merge its four LTL operating companies, consolidate terminals and alter work rules.

The union agreed to Phase 1 of the plan in 2022, which Yellow hailed as a success. Yellow, however, blamed the union’s “stonewalling” of Phase 2 as the cause of its “death spiral.”

The suit alleged Sean O’Brien, Teamsters general president, used the blockade as leverage to “extract wage increases,” and that he was willing to let the company fail “as a show of strength” ahead of labor negotiations with larger companies like UPS (NYSE: UPS).

The Teamsters called the claims “unfounded and without merit,” at the time of the suit. It accused Yellow of using the union as a “scapegoat for the company’s inevitable demise,” according to the Wednesday filing. The union maintained that the proposed changes in Phase 2 violated the collective bargaining agreement.

Yellow closed its doors on July 30, 2023, a month after it filed the lawsuit, leaving 30,000 people, including 22,000 Teamsters, unemployed.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas dismissed the lawsuit in March 2024, siding with the union’s argument that Yellow failed to follow the internal grievance procedures mandated by the National Master Freight Agreement before initiating legal action.

A three-judge panel ruled Wednesday that the district court “erred” by denying Yellow’s subsequent request to amend its complaint to include additional facts, which came to light during discovery. The appeals court’s decision centered on the legal principle of repudiation, which exempts a party from exhausting grievance procedures if the other party has refused to participate.

The ruling cited allegations that the union categorically refused to support the change of operations, with O’Brien publicly stating the Teamsters “are done making concessions” and would “go after [Yellow] with everything we’ve got.”

The decision also said O’Brien allegedly told the Teamsters’ board that its “position is that we do not in any way support Yellow’s proposed change of operations” and “will therefore not adhere to any such changes and will reject, up to and including striking, any proposals of such.”

The case will now return to the district court where Yellow will be permitted to file an amended complaint to include new evidence. Yellow’s suit initially sought $137 million in lost adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, and at least $1.5 billion in lost enterprise value if the company were to shut down.

“The Teamsters defeated Yellow’s baseless complaint and look forward to defeating their baseless Amended Complaint,” a spokesperson with the Teamsters told FreightWaves.

More FreightWaves articles by Todd Maiden:

How to Choose the Right Authority to Lease Your Truck With

When you’re staring at that lease-on contract, it’s easy to get tunnel vision. You see the logo, the promise of steady freight, maybe a fuel card or a shiny dispatch app — and you start thinking this might finally be the break you need. But that signature can change everything. Whether you lease your truck onto a small carrier with a handful of units or a mega carrier with thousands, the difference isn’t just the name on the side of your door — it’s who’s really in control of your money, your miles, and your future.

Let’s unpack this with no fluff. You’ve worked too hard for that truck note to gamble it on the wrong deal.

What “Leasing On” Really Means

Leasing onto a carrier means you’re giving them permission to run your truck under their DOT authority. They take care of compliance, safety, and (in most cases) insurance and load booking. You provide the truck, the labor, and the liability that comes with every mile.

On paper, it sounds simple — a fair exchange. But the catch is how that carrier handles the money, the freight, and your time. That’s where small fleets and mega carriers take two very different roads.

Leasing to a Mega Carrier — The Good, the Bad, and the Hidden

Big-name carriers (think 1,000+ trucks) are like Walmart for freight. Everything is standardized. You’ll likely get consistent lanes, fuel discounts, and insurance coverage already baked in. The onboarding process is fast, and they’ll sell you on “stability.”

The upside:

  • Consistent freight: You won’t be chasing loads on the boards every morning.
    Established reputation: Some shippers pay faster or better through mega carriers.
    Infrastructure: Safety, compliance, and dispatch teams are already in place.

The downside:

  • Your control disappears. You’re a truck number in a sea of truck numbers.
    Rate transparency: You may never see the real load rate — only your cut.
    Settlements: Deductions stack up quick. Trailer rental, insurance, escrow, maintenance, and “miscellaneous fees” that never seem to go away.
    Forced dispatch: It’s not always called that — but turn down too many loads and watch how fast your miles dry up.

When you lease to a mega carrier, you’re signing into a machine built for predictability, not partnership. They can make you comfortable, but comfort is expensive when it limits your ceiling.

Leasing to a Small Fleet — A Different Kind of Game

Small fleets (usually 5–50 trucks) offer something you’ll never find at the big companies: a face, a name, and usually a direct line to the owner. The smaller the fleet, the more flexible things can be — and the more your truck actually matters to their operation.

The upside:

  • Better communication: You’re not dealing with a call center. You can call the owner when something goes sideways.
    Higher splits: It’s common to see 80/20 or even 85/15 revenue splits versus the 65/35 you’ll see at mega carriers.
    Rate visibility: Many small carriers let you see the rate con or even book your own freight. Transparency matters.
    Freedom to build: Some will allow you to develop your own customer base while running under their authority — a big plus if you’re eventually going to get your own.

The downside:

  • Less infrastructure: You might have to manage your own maintenance, compliance tracking, or even insurance paperwork.
    Limited freight access: Smaller fleets don’t always have big shipper contracts, so freight might rely more on brokers.
    Financial risk: If the carrier has cash flow issues, your settlement can be delayed — and that truck payment won’t wait.
    The small fleet route rewards independence. But it also demands maturity — you’ve got to treat it like your own business, not a “job.”

The Key Question — Who’s Controlling the Freight?

This is where most lease drivers get caught slipping. Freight control equals income control.

At a mega carrier, you have little to no say. They assign, you haul.

At a small carrier, you can negotiate, plan, and sometimes even choose your own loads.

Ask these non-negotiable questions before signing anything:

  1. Can I see the rate confirmation for my loads?
    Do I have the right to refuse freight?
    How fast are settlements paid?
    Is fuel advanced or reimbursed?
    Who pays for liability and cargo insurance?
    What happens if the carrier’s authority gets suspended?

If they can’t answer those clearly, walk away. Confusion on paper turns into conflict on payday.

The Numbers Behind the Decision

Let’s talk some numbers.

Say you run 2,500 miles a week at an average of $2.25 a mile gross revenue — $5,625 total.

Mega carrier split (70/30):

You take home $3,937 before expenses.

Small fleet split (85/15):

You take home $4,781 before expenses.

That’s an $844 difference — per week. Over a year, that’s $43,888 you’re giving up for “consistency.”

Now, if the small fleet’s lanes are weaker or you’re burning more fuel chasing loads, that gap can narrow. But that’s why due diligence matters — not just chasing logos.

Red Flags to Watch For

  • No written contract: Verbal promises mean nothing in trucking.
    They won’t show rate confirmations: That’s your first sign of exploitation.
    Deductions not clearly listed: Ask for a sample settlement.
    They control fuel cards but won’t share pricing: You might be paying a markup.
    The authority has red flags in regard to the out of service history.
  • They don’t provide insurance certificates: Verify the policy.
    No ELD access: If you can’t see your logs, they can manipulate your hours.

The best carriers — big or small — welcome your questions. If they get defensive, they’ve got something to hide.

How to Protect Yourself Before Signing

  • Run an FMCSA check: Look up their DOT number. See their safety rating, insurance, and how long they’ve been active.
    Ask other drivers: Find someone who’s leased on and get the real scoop — settlements don’t lie.
    Ask for sample settlements: If they hesitate, that’s a bad sign.
    Read the fine print: Especially around “termination clauses” and “equipment obligations.”
    Make sure insurance is current: Verify through the FMCSA SAFER portal.
    Keep your independence: Never give them full control of your truck title or registration.

A good carrier partnership feels like teamwork. A bad one feels like handcuffs.

Q&A Section

Q: What’s the average revenue split for lease-on drivers?

A: Some mega carriers pay 65–75% of the load revenue, while smaller fleets typically pay 80–85%. The difference usually reflects infrastructure and support, not generosity.

Q: Should I lease to build experience before getting my own authority?

A: That depends on you — leasing to a solid small carrier can teach you the ropes on compliance, rate negotiation, and freight flow without the pressure of maintaining your own DOT authority.

Q: Can I switch from a mega carrier to a small one mid-year?

A: You can, but make sure your current lease is terminated properly. Some contracts include penalties or hold your escrow hostage. Get everything in writing before you pull your plates.

Final Thought

Leasing on isn’t about picking comfort — it’s about picking control.

The right small carrier will teach you the business and let you grow. The wrong one — big or small — will bleed you dry. Don’t fall for brand names or fancy recruiters. Sit down, ask the hard questions, and make sure the math and mindset align.

Because at the end of the day, it’s your truck, your time, and your future.

What Midland’s $5 Million Write-Off Teaches About the Next Phase of the Trucking Slow Down

Trucking’s pain is spreading beyond freight rates and diesel prices — it’s now hitting the banks. In its third-quarter earnings release, Midland States Bancorp revealed that trucking industry woes triggered $5 million in equipment finance charge-offs for the quarter, prompting the Illinois-based lender to walk away from equipment financing altogether.

That decision wasn’t made lightly. For years, banks leaned on equipment finance as a stable, asset-backed business line. But when carriers start missing payments and the resale value of used trucks keeps slipping, those assets stop looking so “secure.”

And Midland isn’t alone. Across the board, lenders like Beacon Financial and Banc of California are scaling back — while First Citizens BancShares is tightening its belt and boosting its collections teams just to stay ahead of potential losses.

Midland’s Full Stop — The Trucking Fallout

Midland’s story is the headline.

The company reported its equipment finance loan balance down 26.1% year-over-year, falling to $326.9 million, with leases dipping another 25.5% to $311 million. By September 30, Midland officially stopped writing new equipment finance deals.

Chief Executive Jeffrey Ludwig didn’t sugarcoat it — he said the move was designed to “reduce exposure to higher-risk asset classes.”

In plain terms: they’re done with trucking paper.

This wasn’t an overnight decision. Midland started quietly backing away from the trucking and specialty vehicle space in 2023, part of what Ludwig called a “credit clean-up.” Translation — they’d been watching too many accounts go south.

In Q3 alone, trucking losses made up nearly half of the bank’s total $12.3 million in charge-offs, even though that figure is down nearly 45% from last year. And while Midland’s total provisions for credit losses rose 11.6% to $20 million, $15 million of that came from its equipment portfolio alone.

Ludwig said the bank believes it’s “appropriately reserved for future losses,” but pulling the plug says it all. When a bank like Midland decides it’s safer to stop lending than to keep collecting, it’s a signal — the small-carrier crisis has officially become a lender problem.

Beacon’s Warning — Nonperforming Loans on the Rise

Boston-based Beacon Financial — the product of the merger between Brookline Bancorp and Berkshire Hills — is facing its own equipment headaches.

Beacon’s equipment loan book dropped 10.6% year-over-year to $1.2 billion, but the more concerning stat is this: nonperforming equipment loans climbed 12.3% to $41.8 million.

After merging two regional banks, Beacon inherited troubled assets from Brookline’s subsidiary, Eastern Funding, which has deep exposure to older commercial vehicles and small operators.

The result? Their provision for credit losses exploded from $4.8 million to $87.5 million year-over-year. That’s not a typo — that’s what happens when you mix aging trucks, overextended fleets, and an unforgiving freight market.

Chief Credit Officer Mark Meiklejohn admitted during their earnings call that charge-offs — which have already jumped 316% year-over-year to $15.9 million — could keep rising, driven mainly by those same distressed transportation loans.

That’s not just a bank problem. It’s a reflection of what’s happening at the street level — carriers holding on longer than their revenue can support, and lenders running out of patience.

Banc of California — Quiet Retreat, Same Struggle

On the West Coast, Banc of California is also cutting its exposure, though they’re not saying it outright.

Their equipment lease portfolio dropped nearly 11% year-over-year to $632 million, and income from that business fell a sharp 39.9% to $10.3 million.

While they haven’t declared a full exit, the direction is clear — fewer deals, less appetite for risk, and more selectivity in which industries they’ll finance. The lender still lists construction, manufacturing, and material handling among its focus areas, but it’s not hard to guess which one’s getting trimmed first.

Transportation equipment, especially used tractors, is volatile. When freight demand drops, resale value tanks, and that equipment becomes a liability instead of collateral.

First Citizens — Tightening the Belt, Not Walking Away

Then there’s First Citizens BancShares out of Raleigh, North Carolina — one of the few leaning in, but cautiously.

While its equipment lease income ticked up 3% year-over-year to $9.4 billion, CFO Craig Nix made it clear they’re feeling the same pressure. He cited “stress” in both their equipment and commercial real estate portfolios but said trends were “moving toward long-term expectations.”

The company’s net charge-offs still ballooned 96.6% year-over-year to $234 million.

Their approach? Not retreat, but reinforcement — tightening underwriting standards and beefing up collection staff to chase past-due accounts. It’s the difference between trimming exposure and fighting to manage it.

The Bigger Picture — When Banks Stop Trusting Truckers

Here’s the reality: when banks start backing out of truck financing, it’s because they no longer believe the industry’s risk-to-reward ratio makes sense.

For lenders, equipment finance is supposed to be predictable. A $150,000 truck secures the note — simple math. But when that truck drops in resale value in less than a year and the carrier behind it misses payments due to $1.50 spot rates, it’s no longer “secured.”

And that’s exactly what’s happening right now.

Midland’s decision to completely halt new originations is one more domino in a string of tightening credit across the trucking landscape. For small carriers trying to refinance, buy used equipment, or expand, the lending door is closing fast.

We’re not just in a freight recession — we’re in a credit recession for truckers.

What Small Carriers Should Take From This

  1. Banks are pulling back. Expect stricter credit checks, higher interest rates, and tougher terms. Used equipment isn’t a safety net anymore. Book values are falling faster than finance rates can adjust. If you’re already financed, protect your relationship. Make payments on time, communicate, and keep your financials current — lenders are reviewing risk profiles monthly now.
  2. Have a clear lens on your revenue. Lenders love stability. The more diversified your freight mix (spot and contract), the lower your perceived credit risk.

The carriers who survive this will be the ones who treat their financials like their logbooks — tight, clean, and consistent.

Q&A Section

Q: Why are banks pulling out of trucking equipment finance?

A: Because loan losses are rising, resale values are falling, and the risk outweighs the reward. Trucking’s freight recession has turned many “secured” loans into high-risk paper.

Q: Does this mean financing is dead for small carriers?

A: Not dead, but it’s shrinking. Independent lenders and credit unions may still lend, but the terms will be tougher, and approvals slower.

Q: How can carriers prepare for tighter credit?

A: Build cash reserves, pay down high-interest debt, and maintain a spotless payment record. Those with strong financials will still find capital — but it’ll take proof, not promises.

Final Thought

When a bank like Midland walks away from trucking altogether, it’s not just a business move — it’s a warning shot.

The industry’s financial backbone is cracking under the weight of low rates, high equipment costs, and delayed recoveries.

Carriers who understand this early will start running leaner, building reserves, and tightening operations before credit fully dries up. Because when lenders lose confidence in the trucking market, the fallout always hits small fleets first — and hardest.

Fuel Ain’t Just Fuel — How Smart Small Carriers Save Thousands with Station Choice and Burn Rate

Most small trucking company owner wants to save on fuel — but some don’t actually know how. They’ll pull into the first truck stop they see, top off the tank, and gripe about diesel prices on the CB. But here’s the truth that separates profitable operators from the ones barely scraping by: your fuel cost isn’t just what you pay per gallon — it’s also how many gallons you burn to make every dollar.

Two drivers can run the same lane, same miles, same freight, and end the week with completely different profit margins. One understands how to work both sides of the fuel equation. The other just fills up and hopes for the best.

Let’s break down the two controllable drivers that determine your fuel economy — Station Selection and Fuel Consumption — and how you can start putting that savings directly into your pocket instead of into the pump.

Part 1 — Station Selection: You Don’t Save at the Pump, You Save at the Card

Every fuel stop decision starts with one question: where are you buying? Because the difference between the best and worst station on your route can swing your weekly profit by hundreds.

You’ve got two ways to pay for diesel: retail price or net price.

Retail is what’s flashing on the sign.

Net price is what you actually pay after taxes, discounts, and rebates.

Smart operators chase net price, not brand loyalty.

Example: Station Selection Savings

Let’s say you’re running 2,500 miles a week and averaging 7 MPG.

That’s 357 gallons burned per week (2,500 ÷ 7).

Now let’s compare two stations:

StationRetail PriceDiscountNet PriceWeekly Fuel Cost
TA in Nashville$3.83$0.00$3.83$1,367
Speedway in Jackson$3.52$0.12$3.40$1,213

That’s a $154 savings in one week — just from choosing a smarter stop. Multiply that by 52 weeks and you’ve saved over $8,000 a year without driving a single extra mile.

How to Make Smarter Fuel Buys

  1. Use fuel network apps (OTR, Mudflap, or NASTC) — they show you real net pricing, not the billboard price.
    Plan your fuel by route, not emotion. That “big brand” stop might cost you 30¢ more per gallon for the same fuel.
    Know your fuel tax states. In states like Illinois, the pump price looks cheap but has higher tax baked in — and you’ll pay it later at IFTA.
    If you’re not planning your fuel, you’re gambling your profit. Every stop needs a purpose — not just a parking space.

Part 2 — Fuel Consumption: The Real Game Is in the Burn Rate

Now let’s move from what you pay to how you burn it.

Because once that diesel’s in your tank, you control how efficiently it gets used. And that’s where drivers can quietly pick up thousands in annual savings without ever touching the price per gallon.

Your fuel economy (MPG) is your burn rate — and every tenth of a mile per gallon counts.

How to Calculate MPG the Right Way

  1. Start with your odometer or trip miles.
    Record gallons filled (use full-to-full method).
    Divide miles by gallons.

Example:

You drive 1,400 miles and refill with 200 gallons.

1,400 ÷ 200 = 7.0 MPG

That’s your true MPG, not what your dash computer estimates. Always calculate it yourself — because your truck’s onboard reading can be off.

How MPG Impacts Your Wallet

Let’s run a side-by-side comparison.

MPGGallons Used (2,500 miles)Weekly Fuel Cost @ $3.76Annual Fuel Cost (52 weeks)
6.0 MPG416 gal$1,564$81,328
6.5 MPG384 gal$1,442$74,974
7.0 MPG357 gal$1,343$69,836
7.5 MPG333 gal$1,252$65,104

Difference between 6.0 and 7.5 MPG = $16,224 saved per year.

That’s not theory — that’s math.

A small change in habits (speed, idling, shifting in manuals, and route discipline) can even buy you a year’s worth of truck insurance or new steer tires.

The Big Four Fuel Killers

If your MPG is low, it’s usually because of these:

  1. Speed: Every 1 MPH over 65 burns roughly 0.1 MPG.
    Idle Time: One hour of idling uses about a gallon of fuel.
    Tire Pressure: Under inflated tires can cost 0.5 MPG or more.
    Load & Route Management: Heavy freight on steep grades = bad fuel.
    Example:

If you idle 4 hours per day, that’s 28 gallons a week.

At $3.76/gal, that’s $105 a week — or $5,460 a year just to keep the truck humming while parked.

Add that to poor route planning or running 70+ MPH all day, and you’re leaving thousands a year on the table in wasted fuel.

Bringing It All Together — The True Cost Per Mile

Let’s connect the two pieces:

Driver A buys cheap fuel but runs hard at 70 MPH.

Driver B buys smart fuel and runs disciplined at 65 MPH.

CategoryDriver ADriver B
MPG6.27.4
Fuel Price$3.65$3.40
Weekly Miles2,5002,500
Weekly Fuel Cost$1,472$1,149
Annual Fuel Cost$76,544$59,748

That’s $16,796 difference per year — same miles, same freight, just smarter execution.

That’s the power of combining station selection with fuel consumption discipline.

Quick Steps to Master Both Sides

1. Track your MPG weekly.

Use a spreadsheet or app. Know your baseline so you can measure progress.

2. Pre-plan fuel stops.

Use discount apps or fuel network maps before you start your week.

3. Set speed control discipline.

Cruise control or smart pedal management at 62–65 MPH saves thousands annually.

4. Reduce the idle time.

Invest in an APU or idle-reduction system if possible — it pays for itself fast.

5. Check tire pressure daily.

Even a 10 PSI drop in one tire can drag your MPG down by 1–2%.

Q&A Section

Q: What’s the national diesel average right now?

A: As of this week, the DOE Diesel Price Per Gallon sits at $3.76, with recent swings between $3.45 and $3.83. Plan your fuel stops using this as your baseline reference.

Q: What’s a “good” MPG for an owner-operator?

A: Depends on your truck. 7.0–7.5 MPG is the sweet spot for most modern trucks. With aerodynamic tractors, you can see 8+ MPG if you drive smart and keep idling low.

Q: How can I track my improvement?

A: Use a simple formula each week — Miles ÷ Gallons. Record it after every fill-up. Watch your average climb as you adjust habits.

Final Thought

Fuel is your biggest controllable expense — and your biggest opportunity.

Every smart decision, from where you buy to how you drive, turns wasted fuel into profit. You don’t need a new truck to get better fuel economy — you just need new habits.

The best carriers track this weekly. The best drivers treat it like a game they plan to win.

And if you start focusing on both price per gallon and gallons per mile, you’ll find out real quick that the road to better profits doesn’t start at the fuel island — it starts with discipline behind the wheel.