Transmodal's Logistics and Trade Update November 2026

IN THIS ISSUE

Transpacific rates are not collapsing. As of late October, Far East to US West Coast was sitting above where it has been all year, and Far East to US East Coast is running more than 330% above the pre-Hormuz baseline. The critical number alongside those rates is 50.6%, which is September's schedule reliability score from industry analysts. When only half of vessels arrive on time and late arrivals average 6.65 days behind schedule, your freight cost and your freight timeline are both elevated simultaneously. Plan for both.    

What the data shows as of early November: recent market data places Far East to US East Coast rates more than 330% above the pre-Hormuz level of February 28, with West Coast rates elevated at a similar scale. Multiple rate indices confirmed the same range in late October, with a forward view suggesting Transpacific spot rates will ease gradually through November as post-peak-season volumes taper. Asia to US West Coast has been broadly flat since September, indicating the market has found a floor rather than a continued decline.

Schedule reliability at 50.6% in September is the number that changes how you plan. When fewer than half of vessels arrive on time and the average late arrival is 6.65 days behind schedule, the nominal transit time on a booking confirmation is not a planning input. We're seeing importers absorb landed cost surprises not from rate changes but from holding and demurrage charges generated by schedule slippage. Recent market reporting has flagged early vessel arrivals bunching at North European hubs alongside vessels still operating on Cape routings -- a congestion pattern that will carry into November as holiday inventory flows peak.

Blank sailings remain a carrier tool. Industry trackers listed roughly 34 blanked sailings out of 713 scheduled for weeks 42 through 46, a 5% rate with roughly half falling on Asia-Europe. Carriers are demonstrating the capacity discipline needed to prevent rates from softening further, and the November GRI announcements are partly a signal to the market, not purely a demand-driven move. For Asia-Europe shippers, rates to North Europe in late October were meaningfully below earlier 2026 highs. The divergence between US-bound and Europe-bound rates has not narrowed. For importers renewing contracts in Q4, those are two entirely different negotiations and should be treated that way.

The November planning framework: Build schedule buffer into Black Friday and pre-Christmas delivery windows. The 6.65-day average delay means a vessel booked to arrive November 10 carries a realistic arrival range extending past November 16. For East Coast importers, the rate premium over West Coast continues to narrow the economic case for all-water routing unless origin port logistics make it necessary. Watch November GRI outcomes. If carriers successfully hold the line, rate softening into Q1 2027 will be modest. If GRIs roll back, Q1 contract negotiations become considerably more favorable. 

ADDITIONAL READING

Asia to North America air cargo rates hit a 2026 high in the first week of November -- up 40% compared to the same week last year, per recent market data. That level is approaching last year's peak reached in early December. The market is pricing in peak season demand. Whether shippers booked spot or on contract this quarter will determine which side of a significant cost gap they land on. 

What the data shows: recent market data published November 3, 2026 showed Asia-North America air rates up 9% week-on-week and 40% year-on-year. The China-North America lane specifically drove the weekly gain. Asia-Europe air rates moved more modestly, up 1% week-on-week and 11% above the same period last year, but well below earlier 2026 highs. The divergence between Asia-US and Asia-Europe air lanes in November mirrors the ocean freight pattern -- stronger demand momentum on US-bound lanes and softer conditions to Europe.

We're seeing the structural story behind these numbers: e-commerce volumes, particularly cross-border flows from China to North America, are the primary driver of elevated Asia-North America rates. Those flows have not shown the same strength on Asia-Europe lanes, which is why the rate premium between the two corridors has widened rather than narrowed as we move deeper into Q4. Recent industry reporting confirms demand continues to grow year-on-year but that the exceptional peak surge the market was priced for earlier in 2026 has not materialized as a step-change event -- growth has been steady rather than sudden.

Capacity is the second constraint. The diversion of belly capacity on passenger aircraft, the ongoing pressure from e-commerce carriers running freighter-only operations, and the freight premium paid on Pacific routes versus Atlantic routes have combined to keep available tonne-kilometre supply tighter than the aggregate demand numbers alone suggest. Shippers who rely on ad hoc spot bookings during the November-December window should expect both rate pressure and capacity availability to work against them simultaneously.

The practical implication for November and December: Importers who have not locked in air freight capacity for the peak window should do so immediately. Spot rates are at their 2026 high and moving toward last year's December peak -- the most expensive air freight your supply chain will see this year. Any product category where the cost of a stockout or a missed holiday window exceeds the freight cost differential should be in confirmed capacity now, not when volumes peak further.

ADDITIONAL READING

The Strait of Hormuz was carrying more than 20% of world oil trade before the conflict began. Even after the April ceasefire, traffic through Hormuz has remained far below pre-war levels. Brent crude, which peaked near $118 in late March, pulled back through mid-year before rebounding above $100 in late July and holding in the $87 to $109 range through the end of Q3. The EIA's October forecast projects Brent averaging roughly $105 per barrel through Q4 2026. That is the planning number. The G7 emergency stock releases in October provided temporary relief measured in days, not weeks. This is now the structural cost environment, not an acute crisis. 

What the data shows: industry fuel price data from early October placed VLSFO at $876.50 per metric ton across a 20-port average. MGO reached $1,500 per metric ton. Port-level variation is significant -- Rotterdam was at $682.50 while Fujairah sat at $979.50 and Los Angeles/Long Beach at approximately $1,055. The Q4 2026 forecast projects VLSFO at roughly $882 per metric ton and MGO near $1,418. For vessels calling European ports, the IMO EU ETS compliance cost layers on top of the VLSFO market price, making effective total fuel cost per metric ton well above any pre-2026 budget assumption.

The Hormuz disruption has also affected the fuel supply chain, not just crude prices. Oil tanker transits through Hormuz stayed far below pre-war levels even after the ceasefire, and the East-West Crude Oil Pipeline shut down in September, adding additional pressure on supply routing. The combined effect of Bab al-Mandab and Hormuz restrictions is estimated to have disrupted approximately 39% of global trade and 31% of global shipments at peak, per the IEA's assessment. That supply pressure has not fully unwound. It is in the price.

We're seeing carriers use every mechanism available to pass through elevated fuel costs. Emergency Fuel Surcharges, Bunker Adjustment Factors, and Peak Season Surcharges filed in October and November all reflect VLSFO pricing in the $876 to $882 range. Importers entering Q1 2027 contract negotiations with a fuel assumption below $800 per metric ton are modeling the wrong baseline. The EIA's October 1 Short-Term Energy Outlook uses Brent above $100 as its Q4 and Q1 assumption, and ING Bank analysts have noted that geopolitical risk is locked in a tense equilibrium -- any escalation event resets the price discovery process upward.

The planning implication: Every freight quotation you receive through the end of 2026 is built on oil above $100 per barrel. Temporary dips from emergency stock releases are hedging windows for carriers, not structural relief for shippers. For importers entering or renewing service contracts for 2027, the BAF and EFS clauses in those contracts deserve the same scrutiny as the base rate. A base rate that looks favorable paired with an uncapped fuel adjustment mechanism is not a fixed cost. 

ADDITIONAL READING

The October 2026 Logistics Managers Index came in at 70.7 -- the second-highest reading in four years, behind only June's 71.1. The aggregate logistics cost score hit 257.5 on a 0 to 300 scale, up more than 11 points from September, the fastest cost expansion in over four years. When the LMI moves like this in October, it is telling you something specific: the pre-holiday inventory build is running hard, warehousing space is gone, and transportation capacity is tightening simultaneously. That combination produces a cost environment that does not ease until January.

What the data shows: The LMI is a monthly survey of over 100 logistics professionals measuring eight key metrics: inventory levels, inventory costs, warehousing capacity, warehousing utilization, warehousing prices, transportation capacity, transportation utilization, and transportation prices. October's overall reading of 70.7 is well above the 50 threshold that separates expansion from contraction across all measured logistics activity. The inventory index gained 8.0 points as retailers built holiday stock, and the inventory cost index rose nearly 9.0 points to 88.8, its highest level since March 2022.

Two capacity readings tell the story of where the squeeze is happening. Warehousing capacity fell to 43.5, meaning space is actively contracting and available capacity is shrinking faster than it is being created. Transportation capacity fell to 38.0, also in contraction. Both warehousing and transportation prices expanded in October alongside those capacity contractions. The pattern is straightforward: inventory is coming in, it has to go somewhere, and the cost of moving and storing it is rising because the system does not have excess capacity to absorb the volume.

We're seeing the LMI's October reading confirm what importers with active inbound shipments are already experiencing on the ground. Chassis shortages at inland rail ramps, extended dwell times at distribution centers ahead of peak, and spot trucking rates moving up as dedicated and contract capacity gets consumed are all consistent with a 70.7 LMI. The report's language is direct: the cost expansion 'may foreshadow continued supply-driven inflation' heading into Q4. That framing is not alarmist -- it reflects the actual trajectory of logistics cost indices over the past three months.

The implication for importers: October's LMI reading means your Q4 landed cost includes not just elevated ocean and air rates but a warehousing and domestic transportation market that is tightening in parallel. Importers who built inventory early in Q3 are insulated from the worst of this. Those still moving peak volume in November and December are entering the market at the moment of maximum cost pressure. If your operation has flexibility to accelerate any remaining holiday receipts before mid-November, the LMI data argues strongly for doing so. 

ADDITIONAL READING

A supply chain readiness study published November 3, 2026, surveying 500 professionals across six industries, found a direct contradiction: about 60% of respondents have automated most supply chain processes or adopted AI and machine learning, but only 38% have centralized, real-time data integration. You cannot run a data-dependent AI system on fragmented, manually assembled data. The gap between adoption and readiness is where most implementations are failing right now. 

What the study shows: the study surveyed 500 supply chain professionals across grocery retail, foodservice, healthcare, apparel, general merchandise, and consumer packaged goods. The maturity breakdown tells the story more clearly than the averages. Only 20% of respondents qualified as high-maturity organizations. 72% landed in the medium tier, and 8% in low maturity. Among high-maturity organizations, 81% had centralized real-time data integration. Among low-maturity organizations, that figure was not reported as meaningfully above zero. The gap is not marginal, but structural.

The barrier data is clarifying. 62% of respondents cited data fragmentation as a major barrier to innovation, second only to lack of funding at 63%. Of the respondents who have piloted new technologies, 41% say they cannot scale them. That 41% figure (four in ten companies stuck at the pilot stage) is the operational definition of the readiness gap. The technology works in a controlled environment with curated data. It fails when exposed to the real supply chain, which is where data fragmentation, inconsistent partner data formats, and legacy system outputs create inputs that AI models were not trained to process reliably.

High-maturity organizations reported measurably different business outcomes: 60% cited easier regulatory compliance, 52% reported reduced costs, and 46% reported faster time to market. Those outcomes are not achievable without the data infrastructure underneath them. As one industry executive put it in the study: 'Technology alone is not enough.' The organizations achieving results from AI investment are the ones that resolved data governance before deploying the AI, not after.

We're seeing this pattern across the importer and customs brokerage space. AI tools for classification, duty calculation, and document processing are available and improving rapidly. But the companies that benefit are the ones whose product data, HTS classifications, supplier records, and transaction histories are structured, complete, and consistently formatted. Companies with fragmented data (e.g., classification decisions scattered across spreadsheets, supplier information inconsistent across systems) are buying AI tools and running them on inputs that produce unreliable outputs. The investment in data quality and governance infrastructure is the prerequisite, not an optional follow-on.

The practical implication: Before evaluating any AI tool for your supply chain or trade compliance operation, the first question is not 'what does this tool do?' It is 'is our data structured well enough for this tool to produce reliable outputs?' The study puts 32% of respondents still manually combining data from multiple sources. That is the baseline problem no AI tool solves on its own. 

ADDITIONAL READING