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.
The 15th WCA Worldwide Conference 2026, organized from 9 to 13 March in Singapore, successfully brought together freight forwarding and logistics companies from across the globe. Hosted in one of Asia’s leading logistics hubs, the conference attracted thousands of freight forwarders, logistics enterprises, and supply chain professionals from many countries worldwide.
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.
On March 22, 2026, Glotrans Vietnam attended the 2nd Congress (2026–2031 term) of the Hanoi Logistics Association (HNLA) under the theme “Adaptation – Innovation – Expansion.” The event brought together representatives from government authorities, industry associations, and the nationwide logistics business community.
Concluding the WCA Worldwide Conference 2026 in Singapore, Glotrans Vietnam not only expanded its connections within the WCA network but, more importantly, gained clearer insights into how the global logistics market is operating and evolving.
Recently, Glotrans Vietnam took part in VALOMA LOGFAIR 2026, making a strong impression with its simultaneous presence across three major hubs: Hai Phong, Hanoi, and Ho Chi Minh City.
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.
