Ocean Network Express (ONE) expects profit for the second half of fiscal 2022 to be lower than the profit it reported for the second quarter due to the effects of falling demand and a deteriorating freight market.
Reporting results for the second quarter ended September 30, 2022 ONE posted $5.52 billion in profit over the three-month period, up from $1.32 billion year-over-year.
The company recorded a sudden drop in demand in August and September, along with a sharp drop in spot container freight rates. “Despite the deteriorating market situation, freight rates remained high throughout the second quarter compared with the same period last year, supporting the profit figure,” said ONE. In the first half of fiscal 2022, the Japanese-owned container shipping company reported a profit of $11.02 billion.
Looking at the second half of fiscal 2022, ending March 31, 2023 ONE expects a significantly lower profit margin than reported for the first half of the year. “The drop in freight demand is expected to continue into the second half of the year, resulting in a forecast profit after tax of $4,250 million in the second half of fiscal 2022,” the carrier said.
As a result, the full-year profit forecast for fiscal year 22 is $15.27 billion, about $1.49 billion lower than the previous year. This reflects reduced demand and a deteriorating freight market.
Air cargo is heating up again in a very concrete way: speed is no longer just a company advantage—it is increasingly a national advantage. IATA recorded strong global air cargo growth and a record year in 2024, and in 2025 several months continued to set new highs in demand measured by CTK, suggesting this is not a short-lived surge.
Air logistics is entering a new cycle. International demand is rising fast, shippers are prioritizing speed and reliability, and exporters face tighter scrutiny on documentation and origin. In this context, the real question is no longer whether Vietnam should expand air logistics, but how to build capacity in the right architecture—one that scales volumes while strengthening Vietnam’s role in regional supply chains.
In recent years, “logistics digital transformation” has become a familiar buzzword across industry forums. Yet inside many day-to-day operations, the reality remains mixed: different software for different functions, heavy reliance on Excel and phone calls, and data trapped within departmental silos.
In late February 2026, the Board of Directors of Glotrans Vietnam attended a New Year Dinner & Dance hosted by an international partner, marking a meaningful milestone in the increasingly strong and expansive collaboration between Glotrans and its global partner network.
In the joyful atmosphere of the first days of the New Year, Glotrans Vietnam proudly hosted its 2026 New Year Party to welcome the Spring of Binh Ngo, with the presence of the Board of General Directors, the Board of Directors, and all employees across the system, including offices in Hai Phong, Hanoi, Da Nang, Quy Nhon, and Ho Chi Minh City.
Dear Valued Customers and Partners, Glotrans would like to respectfully announce the Lunar New Year holiday schedule for 2026 as follows:
The shipment of food additives was transported in container No. FCIU3301688 (20’), under B/L MPRSMUM1806, on the voyage from Nhavasheva Port (India) to Dinh Vu Port (Hai Phong, Vietnam) on 29/04/2017.
Company T (Plaintiff – the Insured) entered into an insurance contract with Company B (Defendant – the Insurer). After the insured event occurred, the Insurer alleged that the Insured had violated its obligation to prevent and mitigate losses. The Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged that such an obligation exists but concluded that the Insured did not breach it.
Under the insurance contract, the premium was to be paid in three installments, and in all three, the insured party was late in payment. When a dispute arose, the insurer (Defendant) argued that the insurance contract had terminated before the insured event occurred due to the late premium payment and therefore refused to make an insurance payout. However, the Arbitral Tribunal held a contrary view.
