JUPITER SEA & AIR SERVICES PVT. LTD, EGMORE – CHENNAI, INDIA.

 

E-MAIL : Robert.sands@jupiterseaair.co.in   Mobile : +91 98407 85202

  

Corporate News Letter for Wednesday  September  23,  2026

                  

Today’s Exchange Rates

Currency ▲	Price	Change	%Change	Open	Prev.Close	Day's Low-High
USD/INR	95.59	-0.230003	-0.240037	95.75	95.82	95.58 - 95.8625
EUR/USD	1.1468	0.0003	0.026171	1.1465	1.1465	1.1434 - 1.1478
GBP/INR	127.8153	-0.421898	-0.328998	128.1137	128.2372	127.7066 - 128.2209
EUR/INR	109.6188	-0.380203	-0.345642	109.8631	109.999	109.5536 - 109.9377
USD/JPY	156.959	-0.401001	-0.25483	157.35	157.36	156.826 - 157.779
GBP/USD	1.3368	0.0001	0.007482	1.3367	1.3367	1.3326 - 1.3387
JPY/INR	0.6086	-0.0004	-0.065683	0.6092	0.609	0.6075 - 0.6099

///                   Sea Cargo News            ///

Chennai Port Posts Record Single-Day Pig Iron Export

Chennai Port has recorded its highest-ever single-day pig iron export, marking a significant milestone for bulk cargo handling at the Tamil Nadu gateway. The record shipment highlights Chennai Port’s role in supporting India’s steel and metal export trade and its ability to handle large consignments efficiently.

Pig iron, an intermediate product in steelmaking, is exported to overseas markets for use in foundries and manufacturing industries. The achievement reflects continued demand for Indian metal products in international markets and the port’s capacity to manage industrial cargo.

Efficient handling of such shipments is important for exporters seeking reliable access to global customers. Chennai Port serves industries across Tamil Nadu and neighbouring regions, with road and rail connections supporting the movement of cargo between manufacturing centres and the port. Its location on India’s south-eastern coast also provides access to important maritime trade routes serving Asian and other inter-national markets.

The record pig iron shipment adds to the port’s broader cargo-handling performance and demonstrates the importance of specialised facilities and operational coordination for bulk and breakbulk commodities.

For steel producers and exporters, dependable port infra- structure can help improve supply-chain efficiency by supporting timely loading, vessel turnaround and onward trans-portation. Higher handling capacity can also strengthen the competitiveness of Indian exporters in overseas markets.

The milestone comes as Indian Steel and metal companies continue to explore export opportunities amid changing global demand and trade conditions. Ports handling these commodi- ties remain important links between domestic production centres and international buyers.

Chennai Port’s latest achievement underlines its growing capability in handling industrial cargo and reinforces its role as an important maritime gateway for southern India’s manufacturing and export oriented industries.

New Zealand Parliament Passes India Trade Deal, Cuts Tariffs

New Zealand’s Parliament has passed the country’s trade agreement with India, clearing a key legislative step toward reducing tariffs on a broad range of traded goods. The agreement is expected to improve market access for Indian exporters by providing preferential tariff treatment for a large share of exports to New Zealand.

The deal covers goods trade and is aimed at strengthening commercial ties between the two countries. Indian exporters in sectors such as textiles, apparel, engineering goods, pharmaceuticals, processed foods and other manufactured products could benefit from improved access to the New Zealand market as tariff commitments are implemented.

For New Zealand businesses, the agreement is expected to provide greater access to the Indian market and create opportunities across areas including agriculture, food products, manufacturing and services.

The trade pact forms part of broader efforts by India and New Zealand to deepen bilateral economic relations and expand two-way trade. Lower tariffs are expected to improve price competitiveness for eligible products and encourage business to explore new markets.

With parliamentary approval secured in New Zealand, the agreement will move toward its next implementation stages, including completion of domestic procedures and the entry into force of the agreed commitments.

The pact is expected to provide exporters and importers with a more predictable framework for bilateral trade while supporting greater integration between the two economies.

India Relaxes Export Rules for Small Exporters

India has eased certain export compliance requirements for small exporters, including a waiver of registration requirements for eligible businesses, in a move aimed at simplifying access to international markets.

The relaxation is expected to reduce the administrative burden on smaller businesses and make it easier for them to begin or expand export operations. Small and micro enterprises often face higher compliance costs and procedural challenges when entering overseas markets.

The simplified framework could encourage more businesses to explore international trade, particularly firms that are new to exporting or operate with relatively small shipment volumes.

The government has been working to streamline export procedures and reduce paperwork as part of broader efforts to improve the ease of doing business and expand India’s exporter base.

For small exporters, lower compliance requirements could help reduce transaction costs and allow businesses to focus more on production, market development and customer acquisition.

The move is also expected to support India’s broader objective of increasing the participation of micro, small and medium enterprises in international trade.

Exporters will continue to be required to comply with applicable customs, product-specific and destination-country regulations. The registration waiver applies only to businesses and transactions covered by the revised rules.

The latest relaxation adds to ongoing efforts to simplify India’s export ecosystem and make cross-border trade more accessible to smaller businesses.

Maersk Overtakes COSCO as Largest Intra-Asia Container Operator

Maersk has overtaken COSCO Shipping to become the largest container operator in the fiercely competitive intra-Asia market, according to the latest fleet survey by Alphaliner.

The Danish carrier deployed more than 340,000 TEUs across international intra-Asia services in mid-August, an increase of around 34,000 TEUs year-on-year, the largest capacity addition among operators in the market.

Maersk’s expansion has been supported in part by the Gemini Cooperation’s hub-and-spoke model, which uses an extensive network of Asian shuttle services to feed its main east-west routes.

The carrier deployed 108 vessels in the region, with an average capacity of 3,176 TEUs per ship, the highest among the leading intra-Asia operators.

COSCO Shipping moved into second place despite operating more than 120 vessels, as its deployed capacity remained largely unchanged from the previous year.

Alphaliner estimates that total capacity deployed on international intra-Asia services, excluding domestic trades, stood at just under 2.6 million TEUs, representing a 6.2% year on year increase. More than 80 carriers currently compete in the market.

Mainline operators account for approximately 63% of total deployed capacity, despite operating fewer vessels than regional specialists. Their ships average 2,699 TEUs, compared with 1,338 TEUs for regional carriers.

CMA CGM posted the second largest capacity increase, adding around 15,000 TEUs and moving ahead of Evergreen to rank third in the market.

Among the regional specialists, SITC International remains the largest, with 109 vessels and approximately 157,000 TEUs deployed. It is the only regional carrier with more than 100 ships operating in Intra-Asia services, reflecting its focus on connecting smaller and niche ports rather than competing primarily through vessel size.

Meanwhile, the Drewery Intra-Asia Container Index (IACI) rose 1% last week to $1,323 per FEU. The IACI Composite Index has remained at record-high levels this month, with geopolitical tensions and typhoon-related disruptions continuing to affect supply chains and constrain available capacity.

Suez Canal Authority Extends Anchorage Fees for Southern Suez Operations

The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) has extended its anchorage and waiting fee regime for vessels carrying out logistics operations in the southern Suez anchorage areas and bound for Adabiya Port, with the measure remaining in force until January 2027.

Under the extended arrangement, vessels will be charged US$0.05 per international gross ton per day for anchorage or stay while undertaking activities including crew changes, bunkering, repairs, maintenance and waiting operations.

The tariff framework was introduced and amended in November 2025 for vessels using SCA anchorage areas in the southern sector, bringing them in line with arrangements already applicable at waiting areas in Port Said, Lake Timsah and the Great Bitter Lakes.

A revised tariff structure introduced in January 2026 provided for charges of US$ 0.05 per gross ton per day for the first 10 days, US$ 0.10 from days 11 to 20, and US$ 0.30 for stays exceeding 20 days, subject to annual review.

The extension provides shipowners and operators with greater certainty over the costs associated with vessel waiting and logistics activities at the southern Suez anchorage and in connection with Adabiya Port.

Hapag-Lloyd Named to Fortune 500 Europe 2026

German container shipping major Hapag-Lloyd has been named to the Fortune 500 Europe 2026, a ranking of Europe’s largest companies based on their latest reported fiscal-year revenues.

The ranking highlights the scale and economic significance of Europe’s leading businesses across industries and reflects the continued importance of global logistics and shipping companies to the continent’s trade and economic activity.

Hapag-Lloyd said its inclusion in the ranking reflects the commitment of its employees worldwide and the strong relationships it has developed with customers and business partners over the past year.

The recognition comes as Hapag-Lloyd continues to strengthen its position in the global container shipping and logistics sector, with its operations connecting major trade lanes and supporting international supply chains.

The Fortune 500 Europe ranking is based on companies most recently reported annual revenues, providing a measure of the size of businesses operating across the European economy.

Korean Carrier Explores 20-Day Arctic Link to Europe

A South Korean shipping carrier is exploring a potential Arctic shipping connection to Europe that could cut transit times to around 20 days, highlighting growing interest in alternative routes between Asia and European markets.

The proposed link would use the Northern Sea Route (NSR) along Russia’s Arctic coast, offering a shorter geographical connection between Northeast Asia and Europe compared with traditional routes through the Suez Canal.

For South Korean exporters and importers, an Arctic service could provide another option for moving containerised cargo between Asia and Europe.

A shorter sailing distance could potentially reduce voyage times and fuel consumption, although the commercial benefits would depend on operating conditions and route availability.

The Northern Sea Route remains highly dependent on seasonal ice conditions, vessel capabilities, icebreaker support and weather. These factors can affect schedules and make regular liner operations more challenging than on established maritime corridors.

The potential service also comes as shipping companies continue to examine alternative routes amid disruptions and capacity constraints affecting major global trade lanes. Arctic navigation could offer an additional option for Asian-European cargo if infrastructure and operating conditions develop sufficiently.

However, the route faces significant challenges, including limited port and logistics infrastructure, difficult weather conditions, environmental concerns and regulatory requirements. Geopolitical considerations also remain an important factor for companies assessing operations through the Arctic.

A regular commercial service would therefore require careful planning, suitable vessels and reliable support infrastructure. Cargo owners would also need to asses schedule reliability, insurance and overall transportation costs alongside potential time savings.

The carrier’s interest signals continued industry attention toward the Northern Sea Route as Arctic conditions evolve. If operational and commercial hurdles can be addressed, the route could become an additional link between Asian and European markets, complementing established shipping corridors.

DP World Sokhna Terminal Eyes Key Role in India–Mediterranean Trade

 

DP World’s Sokhna terminal in Egypt could emerge as a key gateway for trade between India and Mediterranean markets, supporting cargo movement through one of the region’s important maritime locations.

The terminal’s position on the Red Sea provides access to major shipping routes linking Asia, the Middle East and Europe. This connectivity could create opportunities for Indian exporters and importers seeking efficient trade links with Mediterranean destinations.

Sokhna is part of DP World’s wider port and logistics network in Egypt. The company’s presence in the country includes container handling and logistics services designed to support international supply chains.

The terminal’s strategic location could be particularly relevant for Indian businesses moving engineering goods, textiles, pharmaceuticals, chemicals food products and other cargo to European and Mediterranean markets.

Improved connectivity through Egypt could help businesses explore alternative shipping arrangements and strengthen supply-chain flexibility. The benefits for individual cargo owners will depend on available services, transit times, freight costs and the specific trade routes involved.

The potential role of Sokhna comes as shipping lines and logistics operators continue to assess routes connecting Asia with Europe amid changing global trade patterns.

For DP World, the terminal offers an opportunity to support greater trade flows between India and Mediterranean markets while strengthening Egypt’s role in regional markets.

The development highlights the importance of strategically located ports in facilitating international trade and providing exporters with access to wider markets.

///                   Air Cargo News            ///

Navi Mumbai Airport Welcomes First Direct Baku Freighter

Navi Mumbai International Airport has received its first reported direct cargo flight from Baku, marking the development of a new air-freight connection between India and Azerbaijan.

The arrival represents another step in the airport’s efforts to build international cargo connectivity and expand its role in the Mumbai region’s growing logistics network.

A direct freighter link with Baku could provide exporters and importers with an additional air-cargo route between India and markets in Azerbaijan, the Caucasus and surrounding regions.

Direct services can also support faster movement of time-sensitive and high-value shipments by reducing the need for intermediate handling.

The new connection comes as Navi Mumbai International Airport develops its cargo operations alongside passenger services. The airport is expected to play an increasing role in handling freight for the wider Mumbai Metropolitan Region and nearby industrial and commercial centres.

Air cargo connectivity is becoming increasingly important for sectors such as pharmaceuticals, electronics, perishables, engineering goods and other products that require rapid international transportation.

The Baku service adds to Navi Mumbai Airport’s expanding international cargo network and could create further opportunities for airlines and logistics operators to develop new routes.

The development also strengthens the airport’s position as an emerging alternative cargo gateway for western India, comple -menting established air-freight infrastructure in the region. 

Global Aviation Link Selects ABX Air for B767 Freighter

Global Aviation Link has selected ABX Air to operate a Boeing 767 freighter as part of its expanding air-cargo operations. The partnership will add dedicated freighter capacity to Global Aviation Link’s network, supporting the movement of cargo on routes served under the agreement.

ABX Air will provide the aircraft operation and associated flight services. The Boeing 767-300 freighter is widely used in the air-cargo market because of its combination of payload capacity, range and operating efficiency.

The aircraft can accommodate both main-deck and lower-deck cargo, making it suitable for a broad range of freight. The agreement comes as demand for flexible freighter capacity continues across international air-cargo markets. Dedicated cargo aircraft allow operators to provide scheduled capacity and respond to changing shipment requirements.

For Global Aviation Link, the arrangement with ABX Air provides additional operating capacity without requiring the company to establish its own freighter operations.

ABS Air, a US based cargo airline, specialises in dedicated air-freight operations and ACMI and Charter services. Its Boeing 767 fleet supports cargo networks operated for logistics and transportation customers.

The new arrangement is expected to strengthen Global Aviation Link’s air-freight capabilities while giving ABX Air another opportunity to deploy its freighter capacity in the growing cargo market.

DAWB Doing Away With Bureaucracy?      Not really!      Geoffrey called me a few days ago to talk about the Direct Air Waybill issue. He said he had read something on the internet that he thought was interesting and wanted to talk about it with me, considering I had been following airfreight issues in the past.      Perhaps our readers will be interested to read some of the points of our discussion. Neither of us has a vested interest in this affair, and both are not “experts” in the true meaning of the word, but we both have keen interest in Air Cargo. This must be seen just as a dinner table conversation and means that nobody should overestimate our opinions or think about using them in their practice. They should seek appropriate legal advice instead, if required by their business transactions.       Geoffrey said, if my memory holds, more or less what follows: “Since July 1st 2026, changes to the IATA Direct Air Waybill (DAWB) rules started reallocating the legal responsibilities of the parties when something unanticipated happens. Depending on your role, the liabilities are no longer certain as they appeared to be. IATA, the airlines’ private, non-governmental international trade association incorporated under Canadian federal law, in their latest announcement exposed a grey area. If a declaration is made with insufficient accuracy, who does the airline take it up with? The shipper named on the document (not the freight forwarder) could be a company the airline has never assessed, maybe there are problems with jurisdiction, maybe it is an empty box, or just an entity unable to pay in case of aggravations. The 2026 amendment, adopted in March, added a new layer to several IATA resolutions connected with the IATA Cargo Agency programme. In this new framework, if a forwarder uses the DAWB structure with its customer shown as shipper, the airline and forwarder are now expected to agree directly on the terms and indemnities that apply in this case. If there is no bilateral agreement in place, the default automatically applies: the forwarder is treated as if it shipped the goods in its own name. In other words, the forwarder can be deemed to be the shipper under the airline’s conditions of carriage, even if it does not own the cargo and did not pack it. That can translate into forwarders being responsible for cargo information accuracy, charges, dangerous goods compliance, customs declarations, sanctions screening, security screening, etc.”      Now, there are several points here that I believe need to be digested a bit more . . . The airline generally works in an international environment and it is difficult to think of somebody better placed and equipped than airlines to adapt, and move at ease in faraway environments. It is a bit difficult to believe that an airline serving a certain commercial area has no way of vetting the company tendered by the forwarder; no airline executive wakes up in the morning to decide where he or she wants to fly the aircraft the following day. The naivety that Geoffrey seems to understand from IATA’s words does not exist. In its turn, the forwarder does not huddle a pack of stray shippers, putting together dangerous goods without understanding the nature of the business . . . Obviously there are and there have always been risks, and there are bad shippers and bad forwarders, but that is not frequent. In general, forwarders are a group of scrupulous and professional people doing a fine job: pushing cargo through the supply chain despite all the problems, difficulties, bureaucracy, shortcomings and disappointments, even when these originate from rolled shipments or short or split loadings. Forwarders are also in general trustworthy parties, so much so that they seem to be the perfect target for governments, or SC stakeholders to add layer after layer of accountability, because FF’s seem to be such an easy target for any kind of safety and security measure.      In the airlines’ case, as forwarders are obliged to lodge, at their own cost, expensive guarantees intended to secure airlines’ revenues, they almost automatically become the easy aim of measures taken to protect airlines’ payments and liabilities. Furthermore, since 9/11 there is almost nothing that can get into the aircraft without a complete examination of what it is, where does it come from and what is it used for . . . This notwithstanding, the heavy vetting that air cargo is routinely subject to seems to be insufficient from this other perspective, why?      On the other hand, I am arguing that the DAWB legal framework is not so different in practice from the natural choice that forwarders have to make in their other businesses on the road, rail and maritime: they can operate as principals or as agents, thus getting duties and benefits commensurate to their choice.  For deep-rooted habits and usual mores, this has not been exactly the same in air cargo, for several decades, and even with the DAWB arrangement it is not corresponding 100%.  Airlines and forwarders have had the habit of pushing the limits of contractual provisions to their legal limits for time immemorial, so there is no big surprise now. The one thing that is surprising instead is that the new framework has been adopted without the usual framework agreement that for decades has ensured the movement of air cargo all over the world, i.e. the IATA/FIATA Cargo Conference. The dialogue has seldom been a bed of roses, but it has produced significant results for a long, long lime in setting air cargo rules that work in practice, for example the most advanced instrument to date, and now defunct, European Agency Cargo Programme.              Brandon Fried, AfA executive director, has taken an almost completely different view: "Freight forwarders should not be expected to assume liability for cargo they neither own, pack, nor control. The revised framework risks shifting responsibility away from the party creating and controlling the risk and onto an intermediary whose role has not fundamentally changed, creating potentially significant legal, operational, and insurance consequences for freight forwarders. Businesses should not assume their existing cover will automatically respond if contractual liability changes. Smaller and medium sized freight forwarders, in particular, should carefully review both their contractual position and insurance arrangements before accepting shipments under the revised framework.”      This has been a very hot topic of discussion within FIATA’s AFI, at the time when the late Herman Donker was the real dealmaker in this business. I wonder what he would say today. I miss his sharp and clear words so much . . . Few experts have done more than Herman for Air Cargo, may his soul rest in peace.        Having paid a small, but well deserved tribute to Herman, here comes the second part of Geoffrey’s reasoning, in substance echoing Brandon’s argument: “The controversial part is that some of this depends on what’s actually inside the box and what the underlying transaction means. We can only wonder how is a forwarder supposed to guarantee the absence of dangerous goods if they never touched the packing?” My instinct suggests an elementary question: why did we spend the last twenty years or so devising more and more sophisticated security measures? These are aimed at ensuring ‘legitimate trade’ is moving in ‘secured’ packages that no freight forwarder has actually touched, unless commanded to do so by the authorities? Are we now unable to give these hard-won measures sufficient credit for doing what they are supposed to do, i.e. provide a reasonable layer of security when the cargo is loaded onto the aircraft? I even have an additional question: are we now much worse off than how we were ten or twenty years ago?      Geoffrey also argued that this change could make forwarders responsible for things they cannot reliably verify. So in practice this could push them to demand more declarations, more paperwork, more indemnities, and probably more fees to cover the risk. Shippers under the new scenario will start seeing tougher contract terms from forwarders: stronger indemnity clauses, stricter information assurances, maybe refusal to move higher-risk commodities without additional inspections. Honestly, this seems almost an accurate description of what has happened in the industry for at least the last three decades . . . so I see no reason to cry wolf now.  The reliable and responsible shipper will not feel any additional friction in my view, save for the increased level of bureaucracy, as and if airlines really feel too insecure now as opposed to ten or twenty years ago to embrace novel requirements.      Geoffrey insists: “Airlines could benefit from this new arrangement because they can easily resort to the forwarder they already have a commercial relationship with, instead of trying to pursue a relatively unknown shipper.” Again I am not surprised: IATA, and all the represented airlines behind its flag, have always tried to control the forwarders’ multitude through a series of rules that IATA sets in its role to “represent, lead and serve” the airlines. The various cargo programmes, and CASS are powerful instruments that achieve the goal of keeping forwarders within IATA’s strict rules, with few, negligible exceptions. Whether this is good for competition and competitiveness, it is a very complex topic that is outside of today’s focus, and better minds than ours have discussed for decades. One should never forget what air cargo was before Ronald Reagan took office, but that is so long ago that only few of us today remember that time.       Now we come to the point I had left behind. One could actually argue whether aircraft are facing greater risks today than in the past, as this seems not to be today’s reality. If you investigate this topic a bit more, albeit through the unreasonable paucity of reliable data, the reality seems to be different. According to Airbus fatalities are concentrated in two phases of the flight and these seem to have no connection with the cargo loaded. META elaborated another hypothesis that I personally do not consider particularly relevant today: “Unlike passenger aviation—where accidents are heavily dominated by controlled flight into terrain (CFIT) or loss of control due to weather—the cargo registry highlights a specific recurring mechanical/human factor: shifting or poorly secured cargo.” I am reporting this as it emerged from my brief research, but I think this result takes into account historical elements that today are no longer relevant. I read a much more interesting point raised by Wikipedia instead: “The registry data reveals that regional, shorter-haul aircraft suffer significantly higher accident rates than long-haul jet cargo giants. In typical multi-year spans, turboprop cargo hulls suffer more than double the accident rates of jet cargo aircraft, often due to operating in regions with less robust radar and ground infrastructure.” In many areas of the world (e.g. Europe) there is a lot of trucking involved in air cargo, but that does not diminish the interest of the statement. In any case none of these points pertain to the forwarder’s services. Considering these elements, could the purpose of the DWAB rule have been generated by the pursuit of greater peace of mind for the airline, rather than greater security for the aircraft? It is certainly difficult to answer this question that is nonetheless intriguing . . .        At this point, Geoffrey turned his attention to FIATA, as the worldwide representative organisation of the forwarders. FIATA formally asked for a review and even tried to delay the effective date to October 2026, but as of late July nothing had changed. Allegedly some airlines might not implement the measure right away, or maybe not for all customers. So forwarders might have to treat this as a carrier-by-carrier visitation, talking to each airline to confirm the applicable conditions before they tender their cargo for carriage. In my opinion, for IATA this looks like giving up on its own mission, which includes setting the standards for the entire industry. This is probably regrettable and shows that IATA’s persuasive force is not so solid when the airlines are directly involved. Hence, if you are a forwarder you should get in writing from each airline you work with, whether it is applying the revised rule and what terms to expect, then reverberate these conditions on to your unwilling customer, in order to seek additional protection and then, after all that, probably ditch your usual insurance policy and take out new insurance, if you find it.  Please bear with my irony here, but I have the impression that something went missing before giving a ‘GO’.      Case in point, the European Shippers’ Council notes that “adding to the uncertainty, IATA has advised freight forwarders to engage directly with individual airlines to determine which contractual terms will apply. Rather than providing a single industry-wide approach, airlines may implement the revised framework differently, meaning forwarders operating across multiple carrier networks could find themselves working under different liability regimes depending on the airline used.” This is all pretty awkward, yet nobody seems to put on the table the question of the rule being adequate and proportionate. Should there be no proportion between what you are doing and the requirements on the public and the consequences within the industry? Why is IATA not subject to an appropriate impact assessment, considering it is issuing rules that nearly bear the force of law, even if, technically speaking, they are not?      So let us come back for one moment to the safety issue: if airlines are not at greater risk in July 2026 than they were in July 2016 or 2006 or earlier still, why was this consequential change necessary? This is not a slight difference of hue on the wall of your bathroom, it is a big change that entails big adjustments in the industry and enormous, rippling costs for the entire supply chain. Considering these stakes, I asked AI to review IATA’s Safety Reports, issued since 1964, with a view to ascertaining the possible increased risk and this is the result (beware that AI always tells you that it can make mistakes):      Cargo aircraft accidents have declined significantly over the long term, mirroring the broader historical trajectory of commercial aviation safety. The downward trend is visible when analysing several key metrics tracked by safety organisations:      1. Long-Term Historical Decline Over a multi-decade timeline, accident rates for both passenger and cargo carriers have dropped sharply due to generational advancements in jet technology, enhanced cockpit resource management, and strict international standardizations. For instance, data tracked by the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) shows that the fatal accident rate for U.S. air carriers plummeted by roughly 80% when comparing recent decades to the late 20th century.      2. The Accident-to-Flight Volume Ratio While the total volume of global air cargo flights has grown exponentially since the 1960s, the rate of accidents per million flight hours or departures has reliably decreased. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the global all-accident rate for commercial operations dropped from one accident per 456,000 flights a decade ago to approximately one accident per 760,000–810,000 flights by 2025/2026.      3. Current Cargo Vulnerabilities Despite the overall decline, cargo aircraft accidents have dropped at a slightly slower rate than passenger aircraft accidents. Cargo operations still see higher risk variables due to: ·        Older Fleets: Cargo operators frequently utilise converted, older-generation passenger aircraft. ·        Night Flying: Cargo routes heavily operate during overnight windows, increasing human fatigue factors. ·        Payload Risks: Challenges uniquely tied to loading, balance, and the transport of hazardous materials (such as lithium-ion batteries).      Because of these factors, hull loss percentages for cargo aircraft have remained flat in recent rolling averages—meaning that while flying is safer overall, cargo planes continue to comprise a disproportionately large slice (25% to 30%) of the few accidents that do occur.      So we have two elements on the table: airlines are not at greater risk today, but the track record of air cargo is not improving as fast as the passengers’ side. In other words, if you merely look at the numbers, air cargo seems to be doing better in terms for safety, but not sufficiently to match the passengers’ side vast improvement. There has been only one case in which cargo has matched, and possibly even surpassed, passengers’ standards and that was during the pandemic. Otherwise, passengers and cargo are intimately connected, but also completely different from many points of view: passengers are not, and they will never be “self-loaded cargo”, as I heard in Brussels many years ago.      The IATA move is allegedly supposed to reduce ambiguity, but as we discussed it could increase the complexity of negotiations, the number of contractual prescriptions and legal reviews, thus increasing uncertainty, paperwork and the overall workload for the parties involved, including the airlines. This will probably become the new normal, but adapting to this new approach is neither easy nor cheap.      The ‘safest move’ as somebody dear to us said “is to confirm your position before the next shipment becomes your next test case.” This is what I consider a decent aphorism describing the risk, as well as a powerful shot: the Queen’s move on the Air Cargo wonderful chessboard . . . or could it be a Bongcloud Opening with unpredictable consequences? For sure a few decades of negotiations and habits have been discontinued.      As Lewis Carroll’s White Queen screams in pain before pinning her finger with a brooch, she explains how her movement affects her timeline: "It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backward.” From here viewpoint, looking at the wonderful chessboard Alice exclaimed: “It’s a great huge game of chess that’s being played—all over the world—if this is the world at all, you know. Oh, what fun it is! How I wish I was one of them! I wouldn’t mind being a Pawn, if only I might join—though of course I should like to be a Queen, best."  But the Red Queen declared: "Now, here you see, it takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as fast as that!"      We hope you enjoyed this meandering, and probably pointless debate. In running backwards as fast as I could, I think I did my part. Marco Sorgetti/Geoffrey Arend

 

I hope you have enjoyed reading the above news letter.                                                    

Robert Sands

Joint Managing Director

Jupiter Sea & Air Services Pvt Ltd

Casa Blanca, 3rd Floor

11, Casa Major Road, Egmore

Chennai – 600 008. India.

GST Number : 33AAACJ2686E1ZS.

Tel : + 91 44 2819 0171 / 3734 / 4041

Fax : + 91 44 2819 0735

Mobile : + 91 98407 85202

E-mail : robert.sands@jupiterseaair.co.in

Website : www.jupiterseaair.com 1Branches  : Chennai, Bangalore, Mumbai, Coimbatore, Tirupur and Tuticorin.

Associate Offices : New Delhi, Kolkatta, Cochin & Hyderabad.

 

Thanks  to  :  Container  News,  Indian Seatrade, Cargo Forwarder Global  &  Air Cargo News.