Insight Focus
Container freight markets in May 2026 firmed unevenly. There were stronger gains on Asia–Europe and selective transpacific lanes driven by capacity management and early peak-season demand. However, underlying volume growth remained weak, limiting broader price increases. Ongoing Middle East disruption continued to inflate transit times, reroute trade flows and tighten effective capacity despite structural oversupply.
Containers Firmed, But Unevenly
Global container freight markets strengthened through May 2026, though the rally was highly lane-specific rather than broad-based. By May 21, Drewry’s World Container Index had risen 6% week on week to USD 2,712/FEU, led by a sharp move on Asia–Europe, where Shanghai–Rotterdam climbed 15% to USD 2,773/FEU and Shanghai–Genoa rose 10% to USD 4,082/FEU. Transpacific gains were more modest, with Shanghai–New York up 2% to USD 4,317/FEU and Shanghai–Los Angeles up 1% to USD 3,385/FEU.
Source: Drewry
The key feature of May was divergence. Some corridors tightened because carriers successfully managed capacity with blank sailings, FAK increases and surcharges, but the broader market remained constrained by weak underlying demand growth and a large vessel orderbook. Global container demand growth in 2026 is forecast at only 2.6%, while the global fleet is expected to grow 4.7%, meaning disruption was absorbing capacity at the margin but not eliminating the structural oversupply problem.
Asia–Europe Led Upside
The strongest price action in May came on Asia–Europe. By May 21, Drewry reported that Shanghai–Rotterdam jumped 15% to USD 2,773/FEU and Shanghai–Genoa rose 10% to USD 4,082/FEU, supported by early peak-season demand and higher FAK levels. Drewry also said only three blank sailings had been announced on Asia–Europe for the following week, suggesting carriers were keeping enough space in the market to capture cargo while still defending prices.
Even so, the Europe trade was not uniformly strong through the whole month. North Europe and Mediterranean rates had been weak since March because European demand was insufficient to absorb capacity. That means May’s late-month improvement on Asia–Europe looked less like a decisive demand recovery and more like a carrier-led firming from a weak base, helped by higher bunker-related costs and the early onset of peak-season booking activity.
Transpacific Gains More Tactical
On the transpacific, rates also rose, but the driver was less cargo growth than effective capacity tightening. Drewry reported Shanghai–New York at USD 4,317/FEU, up 2%, and Shanghai–Los Angeles at USD 3,385/FEU, up 1%, while noting that seven blank sailings had been announced on the trade for the next week. Carriers were also preparing new peak season surcharges, including a USD 2,000/FEU PSS announced by ONE for transpacific eastbound cargo from June 1.
CH Robinson described May as a market where planning had shifted “from capacity to timing.” It said shippers were increasingly dealing not with a complete lack of space, but with a lack of access to preferred departures, as blank sailings, alliance adjustments, Southeast Asian transshipment congestion and Middle East vessel displacement distorted sailing windows.
In practical terms, that meant transpacific pricing stayed firmer than headline import demand alone would suggest, because what tightened in May was not total supply, but reliable, well-timed supply.
Disruption Kept Reshaping Trade Flows
The most important fundamental in May remained the continued effect of Middle East disruption on container networks. Freightos said Gulf-bound containers were still moving via alternative routes, but with higher costs, delays and ongoing congestion. It also said bunker costs were still running around 65% above pre-war levels, even after easing from earlier peaks, keeping upward pressure on carrier pricing.
The Strait of Hormuz remained closed to container shipping in May, with about 100 to 120 vessels, representing roughly 300,000 TEU, effectively sidelined in the Persian Gulf. Suez routings had not resumed at scale across most networks, so ships continued sailing around the Cape of Good Hope, lengthening voyage cycles and reducing effective capacity.
This reshaped trade flows. India gateways were absorbing some cargo previously moving through Gulf ports, while Southeast Asian hubs such as Manila and Singapore faced rising transshipment pressure.
Likewise, ports in the Indian subcontinent and Gulf of Oman were taking on a larger role as alternative hubs as Gulf calls remained unstable. That increased the premium on direct and dependable routings, and widened the differential between cargo moving on simple, direct services and cargo dependent on complex transshipment chains.
Reliability Mattered as Much as Price
In May, schedule reliability and routing quality became almost as important as headline spot rates. CH Robinson said schedule reliability declined month on month across most major east–west trades, while delays remained elevated and preferred bookings required longer lead times on some corridors, especially the transatlantic and selected transpacific services.
Source: CH Robinson
It also highlighted that softer North Asia demand had pushed more capacity toward Southeast Asia routings, increasing reliance on feeder and hub connections and making timing more fragile even where overall space remained available.
Carriers still operated in an oversupplied global market, but disruption, blank sailings, longer Cape routings and hub congestion created scarcity in the most commercially valuable slots. Freightos argued that overcapacity and slow demand were still preventing a broad-based rate surge, even though lane-specific cost shocks and operational disruptions continued to keep certain corridors elevated.
Supply Discipline, Not Demand, Drove the Market
The most important conclusion from May 2026 is that container freight was supported more by carrier discipline and geopolitical disruption than by genuine demand strength. The Drewry index showed that rates could move sharply higher where carriers controlled capacity and lifted FAKs, especially on Asia–Europe.
While May brought firmer container pricing, it did not mark the start of a clean cyclical upswing. Instead, it was a month in which disruption inflated tonne-miles, blank sailings tightened selected corridors and rerouting created localized scarcity, allowing carriers to push rates higher in some trades while leaving the wider market fundamentally fragile.
