Transpacific container freight rates are likely to stay higher than Asia-Europe rates through to the new year, according to Evergreen general manager Wu Kuang Hui, who attributes the gap to stronger economic conditions in the US supporting import demand while weaker European growth weighs on cargo volumes and rates.

Wu, speaking on Friday, said the divergence between the two major trade lanes had become increasingly pronounced: "strong on US routes, weak on Europe routes." He said he expected the stronger US market to continue supporting transpacific rates into the new year.

The assessment from one of the largest container carriers on the Pacific carries weight for shippers and forwarders planning fourth-quarter procurement. If Wu's read holds, importers into US West Coast and East Coast gateways will keep facing a firmer rate environment than their European counterparts, who benefit from softer demand pulling Asia-Europe pricing down.

What does the divergence mean for shippers?

For US importers, a rate premium sustained into the new year means less negotiating leverage in annual contract talks and in the spot market alike. For European importers, the opposite dynamic applies: weak cargo volumes traditionally hand bargaining power to cargo owners, pressing rates lower on the Asia-Europe lane.

For carriers, the split performance complicates capacity planning. Evergreen's own framing — strength on one head-haul lane offsetting weakness on the other — suggests operators will continue to shuffle tonnage toward the transpacific where demand holds, a shift that can tighten Pacific capacity further and loosen it in European trades.

Forwarders face a two-speed market: transpacific bookings priced against firming carrier confidence, European bookings against softening fundamentals.

How solid is the claim?

Wu's forecast rests on a macro argument — US economic strength versus European weakness — rather than on disclosed tonnage or utilisation figures. The carrier has not, at least in the remarks reported so far, published the underlying data: no TEU counts, no load factors, no specific $/FEU levels for either lane.

That absence matters. A general manager's directional call on rate divergence is a commercial signal, not a verified dataset, and carriers have obvious interests in talking up the lane they dominate. Shippers treating this as a planning input should pair it with independent index readings before locking in rates.

The timeline is also worth scrutinising. "Till new year" is a short horizon — roughly one quarter — and even that window carries standard seasonal risks, including Lunar New Year pre-loading patterns that can distort transpacific demand in either direction.

Still, the direction of the claim is consistent with the structural picture Wu describes: two lanes, two demand trajectories, one fleet. Until European import demand recovers or US consumption cools, the gap he identifies has no obvious mechanism to close.

What comes next?

If Wu's expectation proves accurate, the transpacific premium persists into early next year — and the first post-new-year index readings on both lanes will show whether Europe's weakness, rather than America's strength, was the real driver of the spread.