6 Freight and Container Shipping Trends to Watch in 2026

US shipping container imports are experiencing a notable decline—something not seen in 60 years, according to shipping expert John McCown in an interview with GCaptain. That slowdown is happening alongside tighter capacity management through blank sailings, shifting tariffs, route disruption, and new carbon fees.

For large retailers, these changes don’t stay in the supply chain. They show up in landed cost, cash conversion cycles, delivery timelines, and customer experience—and can vary by lane and by market.

Ahead, we take a deep dive into six freight and container shipping trends to watch in 2026, to help you understand what's happening in freight markets and identify strategies to manage the factors you can control, even when challenges arise.

What are the trendlines reshaping ocean freight through 2026?

1. Weak demand is pushing rates down (unevenly by lane)

According to industry rate indices, global headhaul rates had weakened to a level not seen since 2023, with both headhaul and backhaul indices posting steep declines through late 2025. 

In October headhaul rates were down over 50% year-over-year and roughly 14% month-over-month, signaling persistent downward pressure on rates even after peak pricing earlier in the year. 

This softer demand is especially visible in US container imports. New data shows US container import volumes fell 7.8% year-over-year in November 2025, driven in large part by lower demand for Chinese goods. 

A recent report notes that Europe-to-North America ocean rates are likely to remain at historically low levels through the remainder of the year because of continued soft demand and broadly available capacity. 

What does this mean for you? 

For retailers, this means that headline rate drops may not automatically translate into lower landed costs across the board. 

Depending on your sourcing and market lanes, weak demand may result in:

• Uneven landed costs by region, complicating competitive pricing
• Longer cash conversion cycles when inventory sits longer in transit before selling
• Greater forecasting risk when planning seasonal orders and promotions

When planning your budget, you may want to add some extra wiggle room in your supply chain expenses for contingencies like these. And given the risks, be more conservative than usual forecasting returns on your seasonal campaigns. 

2. Tariffs and geopolitics are reshaping demand

The US paused its 145% China tariffs, reducing them to 30%. The tariff reduction is separated into two windows: a 90-day pause for non-China imports (announced April 9) and a 90-day pause for Chinese imports (announced May 12). 

On the surface, this looks like breathing room. In truth, it's created a two-phase demand change.

According to Xeneta’s senior shipping analyst Emily Stausbøll, the structure guarantees a surge.

"There's the window of ~60 days for everybody other than China, and then there's still 90 days for China,” says Emily in an episode of The Freight Debate podcast. 

Merchants are rushing to import before the windows close, which temporarily inflates demand and spot rates—the opposite of what the rate decline data might suggest is coming.

Further, as Wall Street Journal logistics reporter Paul Berger notes in an episode of The Freight Buyer’s Club, this stop-start approach has left ports in limbo. Many are delaying new orders, extending the life of existing equipment, or paying more for limited alternatives outside China.

This matters even if you never think about cranes—because higher infrastructure costs and slower port upgrades eventually flow through to handling fees, congestion risk, and delivery reliability.

What does this mean for you? 

You may need to budget for instability through June 2026. When pauses expire, tariff policy may be hard to predict, which may make it challenging to lock in stable rates.

3. Capacity concentration is increasing congestion and delivery risk

At least one analyst has forecast “carnage” when record capacity from the Far East arrives in North Europe, given long transit times and thin buffers.

Industry capacity data shows that overall vessel capacity on the Asia–Europe route was up 11.7% year-over-year, with an additional 817,000 twenty-foot equivalent units (TEU) added, representing nearly a third of newly added fleet slots since mid-2024. 

Blank sailings are back as a core lever to pull capacity out of the market.

In a five-week stretch from early December to mid-January, carriers cancelled roughly 9% of scheduled global deep-sea departures. Those cancellations were concentrated on the lanes retailers rely on most: Transpacific eastbound, Transatlantic westbound, and Asia–Europe.

When ships arrive, ports feel it all at once, raising the odds of rollovers and missed delivery windows.

The operational consequences are already visible at Europe’s major hubs. At peak congestion around mid-2025:

• Rotterdam, Antwerp, and Hamburg saw 48–72-hour vessel delays at berth, compared with typical waits of under a day before 2020.
• Inland dwell times and barge waits were elevated, extending total handling times from a healthy 1–3 days to a week or more in some cases.

What does this mean for you?

You may need to plan for longer dwell times on Europe-bound shipments, especially during peak windows. Further, budgeting extra days into your lead times for 2026 European arrivals is a smart play.

And if possible, you may want to consider diversifying away from peak Asia-Europe lanes. 

4. Red Sea and Suez disruptions keep Europe-bound lanes unstable

Early 2025 began with 85%–90% of container volume still avoiding the Red Sea—a direct result of Houthi attacks that had persisted through late 2024. While a ceasefire deal created openings for Suez transits, the real constraint was operational complexity.

Even if attacks remain absent, recalibrating sailing routes, port operations, and capacity after a long pause may take months. Carriers can't simply flip a switch and resume Suez transits. Any restart would also release capacity back into Asia-Europe trades, increasing the risk of congestion at European ports already under pressure.

Some liners are testing Suez routes, while others are sticking with Cape of Good Hope bypasses. This fragmented approach means Europe-bound lanes remain unstable: rates, transit times, and port congestion can spike unpredictably depending on each carrier's routing choices.

What does this mean for you?

The Suez uncertainty creates two problems for your supply planning:

• Route timing is unpredictable: Depending on which carrier you book, your shipment might take the Suez, which would give you one anticipated date for arrival, or they might take the Cape of Good Hope—which could take about 10-15 days longer. Since you won't know for certain until shipment, you may want to consider budgeting for longer transits, while maintaining a degree of readiness for earlier arrivals.
• Port congestion varies by routing choice: Europe-bound shipments routing through Suez experience different congestion patterns than those going around the Cape. Right now, there's no route that is always the clear "faster" route. 

So, until carrier behavior stabilizes around Suez transits (likely mid-to-late 2026), assume longer lead times on average, and instability on Europe lanes.

5. Policy instability is shortening planning horizons

Policy uncertainty, according to UN Trade & Development, is a strategy. As the world's largest importer, even modest US policy shifts reshape supply chains globally. And uncertainty itself is proving more disruptive than the actual tariffs.

Air shipments to the US jumped nearly 10% in the first quarter of 2025 compared to the same period a year before, as retailers front-loaded orders to beat tariff deadlines. Then after surging in Q1, imports dropped sharply in Q2.

The whiplash wasn't caused by tariffs themselves—rather, by not knowing when they'd hit.

What does this mean for you?

Your planning challenge in 2026 won't be tariff rates, but may be the uncertainty around when policies change. When the only thing certain about tariffs today is uncertainty, prudent retailers may benefit from staying the course as much as possible rather than reacting to every rumor or whisper heard over the tradewinds.

6. The UN's sustainability push: A hidden cost headed your way

The shipping industry faces the arrival of a significant structural cost increase, though it's not happening overnight. The United Nations launched the first Decade of Sustainable Transport (2026–2035) plan, with 83 concrete commitments to shift toward zero-emission shipping and renewable marine fuels.

Speaking at the UN, World Shipping Council president and CEO Joe Kramek emphasized that the energy transition in shipping will require large-scale investment in renewable marine fuels and port infrastructure, and that the ocean leg of supply chains must be fully included in this effort.

In that vein, decarbonization has moved from long-term ambition to near-term constraint. 

“The debate is no longer about if shipping will decarbonize, but how the industry can afford to meet the impending IMO and EU mandates without crushing global supply chains,” says Richard Oblath, director of HyOrc Corporation, in an interview with Global Newswire.

What does this mean for you?

Starting in 2026, you may start to see:

• Sustainability surcharges on ocean freight (already appearing on some carriers' tariffs)
• Fuel adjustment factors tied to renewable marine fuel availability and pricing
• Port congestion from retrofitting as carriers upgrade vessels to comply with emissions standards

When budgeting for 2026 freight rates, consider building in an additional cushion for sustainability-related fees.

Decarbonization and compliance: Costs to model in 2026

EU and International Maritime Organization (IMO) carbon regulations are mandating operational changes that will add measurable costs to every Europe-bound shipment through 2026 and beyond.

Starting January 1, 2024, the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) covered CO2 emissions from all large ships entering EU ports, regardless of flag. The system is phasing in gradually: 40% compliance in 2024, 70% in 2025, and 100% compliance required by 2027.

From a shipper's perspective, sending a container to Europe now comes with an extra fee: French shipping and logistics company CMA CGM estimated about €43 per TEU in added cost for the ETS. An average bulk vessel emitting roughly 16,000 tons of CO2 per year trading between EU ports would see operating costs increase by €1.3 million in 2026.

That’s the direct cost. The indirect costs come from how carriers comply.

The EU ETS is a cap-and-trade system, which means carriers have limited options: buy allowances at market rates or change how they operate. 

Most carriers are doing both: buying allowances and restructuring operations to reduce emissions.

This is where the IMO’s Carbon Intensity Indicator (CII) and Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) regulations come in. The IMO has set targets to reduce shipping's carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, with CII ratings from A to E. 

The most common strategy used by cargo carriers to comply with carbon-reduction regulations is slow steaming—traveling at slower speeds in order to burn less fuel.

Slower travel means later shipments. CII-driven slow steaming could add 5%–10% to voyage times, inflating costs amid volatile fuel prices. Carriers use slower speeds to reduce fuel consumption per ton-mile, which improves their CII rating and reduces ETS allowance costs.

So, a carrier running a 12-day Asia-Europe voyage at slower speeds might stretch it to 13–14 days. For time-sensitive goods, this creates a choice: pay a premium for faster service on better-rated ships, or accept longer transits on slower vessels.

Also, there's little visibility. Carriers aren't transparent about which vessels will be slow-steamed, so it can be challenging to reliably budget for transit time.

In fact, a 2024 analysis by Transport & Environment found that some carriers may be generating windfall profits from surcharges, with Maersk estimated to make €60,000 per voyage in excess charges. 

This means the ETS surcharge on your invoice doesn't directly correlate to actual regulatory costs.

So it’s important that you ask:

• What’s the verified cost per TEU based on emissions?
• How much of the rate reflects a slow-steaming premium?
• Are administrative and compliance costs being bundled elsewhere?

Reading the market: Turn indices into action

You've seen the headlines about rates falling, but which index should you trust? And more importantly, how do you lock in pricing when market conditions fluxuate?

The Freightos Baltic Global Container Index (FBX) employs a real-time transaction-based methodology capturing live transaction data. While the World Container Index (WCI) uses a composite methodology that offers a stronger reflection of market conditions over a slightly longer term.

And they don’t measure the same thing. The Shanghai Containerized Freight Index (SCFI) is based on spot rates provided by non-vessel-operating common carriers (NVOs) at origin for container exports out of Shanghai. Drewry's WCI and Xeneta's XSI are based on both contract and spot rate data provided by shippers or forwarders.

In short: different indexes may report vastly different results.

FBX vs. WCI vs. SCFI: A quick comparison

Here’s when to use each index:

• If you’re booking spot cargo today, use FBX: The most current of the three, updated daily. 
• If you’re planning annual contracts for 2026, use WCI: WCI blends spot and contract data, giving you a realistic picture of what contracts should cost.
• If you’re monitoring China export trends, use SCFI: The most watched for Asia-originated cargo, even if conservative.

💡Pro tip: Don't pick just one, use all three to understand price direction. All of the methodologies are nuanced and take into account different variables, but as a general rule, it's odd to see one go up and the others not follow suit.

How to build an index-linked contract strategy

The mistake most retailers make is treating freight contracts as binary: fixed or floating. In unpredictable markets, the smarter move is to mix both—by lane, by risk tolerance, and by timing.

As a general rule of thumb:

• Use fixed rates when you need certainty: 
  • Volatility is driven by policy or compliance (tariffs, ETS, route disruptions), and you can't control these, so fix around them.
  • You need cost-certainty to protect margins on pricing or promotions.
  • You're shipping on structurally unstable lanes like Asia-Europe.
• Use floating rates when you can handle movement: 
  • Demand is soft and carrier capacity is loose; rates favor shippers, and index formulas lock in fair market pricing without renegotiation.
  • You can absorb short-term swings without breaking your P&L; flexibility on timing means you're not forced to ship when rates spike.
  • You're optimizing margin rather than guaranteeing speed.
• Mix both by lane and season:
• Lock 60%–70% of volume on core lanes with index-linked contracts; this provides stability while following the market.
• Fix 20%–30% on premium lanes during peak seasons; you pay a premium for guaranteed space and predictability.
• Keep a 10% spot for one-off volumes, unexpected orders, or times when spot rates dip below your contract baseline.

How to plan by lane when freight risk isn’t evenly distributed

Below is the latest market direction and how to treat each lane in your 2026 planning.

Transpacific: Softer demand, persistent capacity glut

Trans-Pacific spot rates have fallen recently. Rates from Shanghai to New York are down by around 10% and Shanghai to Los Angeles falling about 7%, even as carriers attempt general rate increases to push back against market weakness. At the same time, carriers are reintroducing blank sailings and reallocating capacity to balance space with lower booking levels.

Lead times remain relatively stable compared with historic norms, but can fluctuate when carriers adjust capacity reactively.

Your move:

• Lock 60%–70% of core volume on index-linked contracts to tie pricing to broader market movements rather than fixed assumptions.
• Reserve 20%–30% for spot opportunities when short-term demand dips or blank sailings cause tight pockets.
• Build 3–5 days of buffer time for variability caused by capacity “lumpiness” when carriers rebalance space.

Asia–Europe: Ongoing capacity shifts and Chinese New Year (CNY) seasonality

Even as rates on some indices plateau, softness elsewhere suggests competition among carriers and inventory timing effects. Meanwhile, long-standing diversions around the Red Sea continue to add transit time and complicate reliability despite rate easing elsewhere.

Chinese New Year festivities remain a recurring source of congestion and blank sailings each year. The Chinese New Year arrives on the first new moon that occurs between January 21 and February 20, and the festivities run for the first 15 days of the year. In 2026, Chinese New Year festivities run from February 20 to March 3.

Transit windows historically hover around 35-40 days, with the potential for additional time if alternative routing (e.g., around Africa) is used. 

Your move:

• Book early (mid-December through early January) to secure space ahead of the Chinese New Year pull-forward.
• Index-linked contracts now for Q1–Q2 help protect against short-term surges before stabilization.
• Plan 7–10 additional days of delivery buffer for variability around peak congestion windows, especially in northern European hubs.

Trans-Atlantic: Softer rates with spillover capacity on offer

Conditions on the Trans-Atlantic corridor are currently more subdued than on the Pacific or Europe trades. Carriers often rebalance vessels from high-volatility lanes into this corridor to fill space. Spot rate softness tends to persist here because excess capacity in the system flows into this lane.

Trans-Atlantic freight tends to have shorter lead times (often ~12–15 days port to port) due to proximity, but volatility still matters when volumes swing.

Your move:

• Use this lane tactically when Asia-Europe or Trans-Pacific rates spike.
• Lock Q1–Q2 contracts now to secure continuity and avoid mid-cycle rate moves.
• Maintain a smaller spot allocation for flexibility when capacity rebalances into this corridor.

Sourcing shifts: China Plus One (or +N) strategy

The China Plus One (C+1) strategy emerged as a risk-mitigation play. Companies maintain operations in China while shifting part of their manufacturing or sourcing to an additional country. But now, leading businesses are going further by building a multi-country sourcing ecosystem (+N refers to any number of additional countries).

Where to shift:

• Vietnam has no additional US tariffs on its goods (unlike China), giving it a pricing edge for American importers.
• Lead time: 25–30 days to US ports
• India is becoming a go-to hub for electronics and pharmaceuticals. 
• Lead time: 40–50 days to US ports
• Mexico has emerged as a capable alternative with proximity to the US, reducing lead times and improving supply chain resilience due to shorter distances and additional freight options (such as by land).However, goods with Chinese components (or those deemed transshipped from China) face a 40% punitive tariff even when routed through Mexico.
• Lead time: 8–14 days West Coast, 5–7 days East/Gulf Coast (nearshoring advantage)

Here’s what you can do:

• Map your concentration risk: If you have 80%+ of SKUs sourcing from a single country or factory, prioritize shifting 20%–30% of production to a secondary source (Vietnam, India, Mexico, or Southeast Asia).
• Pilot dual-sourcing on one product line: Start small, validate quality and lead time, then scale. Don't flip all your eggs overnight.
• Account for new lead times in your procurement calendar: Vietnam: +3–5 days vs. China. India: +15–20 days. Mexico: 5–8 days faster (nearshoring win).
• Beware transshipment tariffs: If you're sourcing from Vietnam, India, or Cambodia with Chinese components, the landed cost may not improve without genuine local value-add. 
• Build port-pair optionality: If you're importing to Europe, test alternative entry points (Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, Genoa). Chinese New Year backlogs hit some ports harder than others; flexibility saves days and costs.

Operations that protect your gross margin

How do you keep inventory lean while protecting service levels when lead times swing 25–80 days?

Allocating inventory for “managed volatility”

According to a recent DematicIntelligence Brief, many large retailers are deliberately using extra inventory as a shock absorber. 

Ahead of tariff deadlines and demand swings, they’re pulling shipments forward and carrying higher inventory temporarily to secure cost certainty and protect service levels. In reality, it’s the same “inventory as insurance” playbook, but at larger dollar and volume scales than prior cycles.

The question you need to ask at every turn is: does tariff savings exceed carrying cost?

If the incremental tariff exposure is larger than the carrying cost —front-loading is rational. If not, don’t let urgency override math.

Use the cost-to-serve framework

Before you front-load or commit to a lane, model three scenarios:

Scenario 1: What's my true landed cost? 

Start with COGS, then layer in the costs that usually get missed:

• Tariffs (use current rates and a downside scenario for increases)
• Ocean freight rates per unit (lane-specific, based on recent averages)
• Fuel surcharges
• Port and handling fees
• Inventory carrying cost
• 3PL fees and outbound shipping

This will help you determine your break-even amount per unit.

Scenario 2: Should I front-load before May? 

Compare the cost of waiting to the cost of carrying inventory.

For example, consider importing now at a lower tariff rate plus four months of carrying cost, versus splitting volume and paying a much higher tariff later.

If the incremental tariff exposure is larger than the carrying cost (and larger than the profit you expect to earn in the meantime)—front-loading is rational. If not, don’t let urgency override math.

Scenario 3: Which lane? 

Run the same SKU through two lanes:

• China: Lower freight, higher tariff risk
• Vietnam: Lower freight, different tariff exposure

If the delta is only a few dollars per unit, don’t move everything. Test with a small batch first, validate lead times, quality, and real landed cost before scaling.

📚Recommended reading: International Freight Shipping Guide: Costs and Tips (2025)

How SuitShop went from losing money on international orders to 18% EBITDA margins with Shopify

SuitShop is an online-first menswear brand competing in an industry where customers still expect brick-and-mortar service. Every touchpoint matters. But five years in, the team was bleeding money on international orders.

"I think we were spending more to just ship these international orders to customers than we were even making," admits cofounder Diana Ganz.

They were flying blind on landed costs: manual customs documentation, no duties management system, returns processing done by hand, and zero visibility into what it actually cost to ship across borders.

Finally, SuitShop moved to Shopify and integrated Shopify Managed Markets, and the results speak for themselves:

• EBITDA margins hit 18% (well above the 8%–10% apparel industry average).
• 600% growth in international orders. 
• 32% increase in conversion rates for international orders. 
• Delivery issues dropped from 50% to 0% (no more return-to-sender, duties delays, or lost shipments).

“Shopify is core to everything we do. Without Shopify, there would be no SuitShop,” says Diana.

How Managed Markets changes the economics of international commerce

When you sell internationally on your own, you act as the merchant of record. That means you’re legally responsible for registering for and remitting local taxes, managing duties and import compliance, supporting local payment methods, and handling failed deliveries, customs holds, and duty-related returns.

Here’s how Shopify’s Managed Markets de-risks cross-border commerce for you:

• Full merchant of record handling: As a merchant of record, Global-e takes responsibility for cross-border transactions, including tax remittance, compliance, and local financial obligations, so you don’t need local entities or registration.
• Duties, taxes, and import fees calculated and collected up front: Instead of surprising customers with fees on delivery, Managed Markets calculates duties and taxes in real time and displays them at checkout. This reduces delivery refusals, chargebacks, and return-to-sender events.
• Local payment methods supported without custom integrations: Cart abandonment drops when customers see familiar payment options, especially in cross-border contexts where distrust of foreign cards is common. Managed Markets handles payment method coverage automatically.
• Compliance and risk are offloaded to the platform: Managed Markets handles the tedious, risk-laden aspects of cross-border compliance including duties collection, tax remittance, reporting, and exchange control.

Change who owns the risk and expand worry-free into any market you want with Managed Markets.