Ship Universe is designed for maritime stakeholders: lower costs with data-backed decisions. Mobile-friendly but designed for desktop research. Data is fluid, verify critical details before acting.
Alphaliner’s latest run-rate model suggests container carriers serving the United States could face about $3.2 billion in USTR port fees in 2026 if current deployment patterns hold, with COSCO including OOCL modeled at roughly $1.53 billion and material exposure also flagged for ZIM, ONE, and CMA CGM. These projections sit alongside USTR measures slated to start October 14, 2025, including high per-call fees and a separate schedule that hits vehicle carriers, while China signals potential countermeasures.
USTR Fee Exposure - Industry P&L Impact
Story
What Happened and Who is Affected
Business Mechanics
Bottom Line Effect
Scope and timing
USTR measures are scheduled to begin Oct 14, 2025. They include port entry fees that can reach high six or seven figures per call on certain vessel categories, plus a separate schedule for vehicle carriers.
Applies at U.S. ports. Fee triggers vary by vessel type, build origin, and other criteria under the proposal.
📉 New cost line for carriers serving the U.S. market. 📉 Pricing and routing complexity for shippers.
Modeled exposure for 2026
Alphaliner models about $3.2B sector-wide in 2026 if fleet deployment remains similar to today. COSCO including OOCL is modeled near $1.53B. ZIM about $510M, ONE about $363M, CMA CGM about $335M.
Estimates are based on current strings, call counts, and vessel assignments into U.S. trades.
📉 Sector earnings drag if costs cannot be passed through. 📈 Incentive to rebalance strings and redeploy tonnage.
Vehicle carrier fee schedule
A separate levy for vehicle carriers raises per-call costs materially, with reported examples up to hundreds of thousands of dollars per ship depending on capacity.
Ro-ro operators weigh U.S. calls against alternative gateways and revised service loops.
📉 Margin pressure for PCC PCTC operators and their OEM customers if pass-through is limited.
Pass-through and contracts
Carriers can attempt recovery via GRIs, emergency surcharges, and tariff filings. Contract structures may shift toward shorter tenors and indexed clauses.
NVOs and BCOs compare all-in landed costs across gateways, transit times, and reliability.
↔ Some recovery possible where demand is sticky. 📉 Compressed margins where competition is intense.
Network design and routing
Operators may reduce U.S. call frequency, upsize ships on fewer strings, or pivot volume via Canada, Mexico, or transshipment hubs.
Changes in string architecture affect feeder demand, equipment flows, and terminal utilization.
📈 Potential uplift for alternative gateways. 📉 Higher inland and repositioning costs during transition.
Finance and insurance
Modeled fees influence covenant headroom and cash forecasts. Lenders and insurers reassess exposure on U.S.-heavy portfolios.
Higher working capital needs if receivables lag fee outlays.
📉 Increased cost of capital for highly exposed carriers. 📈 Pricing power for financiers with appetite.
China countermeasures risk
Beijing has signaled it can respond with maritime countermeasures that touch carriers, platforms, or port access.
Policy responses could add bilateral frictions and new compliance requirements.
📉 Planning risk for U.S.–China services. 📈 Value for carriers with diversified trade exposure.
Competitive dynamics
Exposure varies widely by carrier. Operators with fewer U.S. calls or stronger pricing power face a smaller earnings hit.
Opportunity for alliances and slot swaps that reduce duplicative calls.
📈 Relative winners can consolidate share on profitable lanes. 📉 Exposed players may trim capacity or accept lower returns.
Figures reflect Alphaliner modeling and contemporaneous reporting on USTR measures and related policy responses.
📈 Winners
📉 Losers
Carriers with diversified trade mix: less dependent on U.S. calls and better able to redeploy tonnage.
Operators with strong contract clauses: greater ability to pass fees through via surcharges and indexed terms.
Alternative North American gateways: Canadian and Mexican ports gain share as strings are re-cut.
Rail and inland logistics with cross-border capacity: benefit from gateway shifts and new intermodal routings.
Financiers and insurers with selective exposure: pricing power improves for low risk clients seeking headroom.
Large BCOs with flexible routing windows: can arbitrage gateways and schedules to mute cost increases.
Carriers heavily concentrated on U.S. trades: highest fee burden and limited alternatives in the near term.
Vehicle carriers on PCC PCTC lanes: separate per call levies pressure margins and sailing frequency.
BCOs locked into fixed rate contracts: less protection against new surcharges and fee pass through.
Ports reliant on frequent carrier calls: risk of fewer weekly services as operators consolidate strings.
NVOs with thin spreads: added fees and routing complexity compress margins on U.S. corridors.
Older and smaller boxships on prompt employment: charter demand softens if networks upsize to cut call counts.
2026 Exposure At A Glance
Sector total (modeled)
~$3.2B
Assumes current deployment mix into US trades
Start date
Oct 14, 2025
Initial measures take effect
Applies to
US port calls
Criteria vary by vessel type and other attributes
Countermeasures risk
Elevated
China has signaled potential responses
Pass-through Channels
GRIs and surcharges
Emergency or seasonal adders aligned to lane conditions and fee incidence
Index-linked clauses
Shorter tenors with variable components tied to public benchmarks
Gateway rebalancing
Use of Canadian or Mexican ports with inland rail to adjust exposure
Network Redesign Levers
String architecture
Fewer calls, larger ships
Alliances and swaps
Reduce overlapping calls
Feeder knock-on
Different load centers shift feeder demand
Equipment flow
Repositioning cost may rise in transition
Vehicle Carrier Angle
Levy structure
A separate schedule applies to PCTC calls, adding material per-call costs
OEM exposure
Auto import flows face fee pass-through risk and possible schedule consolidation
Routing options
Alternate gateways and inland ramps considered where feasible
Carrier Sensitivity Spectrum
Low exposureHigher exposure
Relative sensitivity varies with US call counts, average vessel size, contract strength, and alternative gateways
Contract Dynamics In Focus
Shorter tenors and more indexation where exposure is high
Gateway choice embedded in rate structures and service menus
Documentation requirements rise for surcharge triggers and dispute clarity
Modeled USTR fees introduce a new cost layer that touches routing, contracts, and capital planning. The burden will be uneven, with US-heavy strings and vehicle carriers feeling the most pressure and diversified operators better able to pivot. The next few weeks are about translating policy into invoices and redesigning networks to contain exposure. The shape of the pass-through, the degree of gateway rebalancing, and any countermeasures from trading partners will determine how much of the modeled total becomes a lasting hit to margins.
