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

 

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

 

 

Corporate News Letter for  Saturday  November  07,  2026

 

HAPPY  DEEPAVALI  WISHES TO ALL OUR READERS

Today’s Exchange Rates

Currency ▲	Price	Change	%Change	Open	Prev.Close	Day's Low-High
USD/INR	94.47	-0.18	-0.190175	94.32	94.65	94.3175 - 94.58
EUR/USD	1.1221	-0.0007	-0.062344	1.1228	1.1228	1.122 - 1.1268
GBP/INR	127.1867	-0.495804	-0.38831	127.3159	127.6825	127.1719 - 127.6047
EUR/INR	106.1007	-0.447403	-0.419907	106.2531	106.5481	106.0922 - 106.5247
USD/JPY	158.386	-0.043991	-0.027767	158.44	158.43	157.787 - 158.433
GBP/USD	1.3454	-0.0017	-0.1262	1.3471	1.3471	1.3453 - 1.3501
JPY/INR	0.5968	-0.0007	-0.117154	0.5974	0.5975	0.5967 - 0.5995

///                   Sea Cargo News            ///

MSC containership damaged after cruise ship collision in Bremerhaven

                        Mein Schiff 3, Source: VesselFinder

A TUI Cruises passenger vessel collided with two berthed containerships at the German port of Bremerhaven on 25 October, causing significant damage to one of the cargo vessels and prompting authorities to prohibit all three ships from departing.

The incident occurred at approximately 17:30 local time, when the cruise ship Mein Schiff 3 was leaving Bremerhaven for a scheduled voyage to the Canary Islands. According to Bremen Police, the vessel was being assisted by tugboats when a strong gust of wind pushed it towards two containerships moored along the Stromkaje quay.

One of the vessels involved has been identified in maritime industry reports as the 16,520 TEU MSC Victorine. The second containership was also struck during the incident.

Significant damage reported to containership

In an updated statement issued on 26 October, Bremen Police confirmed that the larger containership sustained substantial structural damage, while the smaller vessel suffered minor damage.

The collision tore open several metres of the larger containership’s port-side hull and deformed container guides. Police said the damaged sections were several metres above the waterline, and no water ingress was reported on any of the three vessels.

The Mein Schiff 3 also sustained considerable damage, including to its lifeboats, associated launching equipment and exterior hull.

Despite the severity of the collision, no injuries were reported. According to information provided by TUI Cruises to German media, the cruise ship was carrying 2,428 passengers and 922 crew members at the time.

Authorities prohibit departure of all three vessels

Following the incident, Mein Schiff 3 abandoned its planned voyage and returned to the cruise terminal in Bremerhaven.

Bremen Police confirmed that the maritime safety authority imposed a departure ban on all three vessels involved in the collision. The restrictions were introduced following assessments of the damage sustained during the incident.

TUI Cruises subsequently cancelled the planned Canary Islands voyage after inspections identified damage requiring urgent shipyard repairs.

The Bremen Water Police are continuing their investigation into the circumstances of the collision. No timetable has been confirmed for the affected containerships to resume operations.

MSC’s MEDLOG joins consortium to operate Júndiz intermodal terminal

Spanish railway infrastructure manager Adif has awarded the operating contract for the Vitoria-Júndiz intermodal rail terminal to a consortium comprising MEDLOG Spain Logistic, part of the MSC Group, the port authorities of Bilbao and Pasaia, and regional institutions in Álava.

The contract has an initial duration of six years, with the possibility of extensions up to a maximum of 20 years. The TERMINAL INTERMODAL JÚNDIZ joint venture plans to handle approximately 300,000 intermodal transport units (ITUs) during the initial six-year period.

The award is expected to strengthen rail freight connectivity between the Basque Country’s ports and inland logistics networks, supporting the development of the Atlantic Corridor and improving access to European markets.

MEDLOG takes leading stake in terminal consortium

MEDLOG holds the largest stake in the consortium at 40%, followed by the Bilbao Port Authority with 25%.

The Vitoria-Gasteiz Intermodal Transport Centre (CTV) and the Álava Chamber of Commerce, Industry and Services each hold 15%, while the Pasaia Port Authority and Servicios Intermodales Bilbaoport (Sibport) each control 2.5%.

The consortium expects annual throughput to increase progressively during the initial operating period, starting with 15,000 ITUs in the first year and 45,000 in the second year.

Volumes are projected to reach 60,000 ITUs annually during each of the following four years, compared with the 4,723 ITUs handled at the terminal in 2025.

These figures represent the consortium’s projected traffic volumes rather than confirmed future throughput.

The terminal occupies approximately 55,000 square metres, including a 36,000-square-metre concrete handling area and three dead-end railway tracks with electrified sections at their termini.

Additional facilities include internal roads, an administration and services building, and dedicated parking areas for heavy and light vehicles.

Strengthening the Port of Bilbao’s hinterland connections

The Júndiz logistics hub forms part of the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) and occupies a strategic position along the Atlantic Corridor.

It is also located at the starting point of the Vitoria–San Sebastián–Bayonne–Bordeaux cross-border section, connecting freight transport networks across northern Spain and southwestern France.

For the Port of Bilbao, the operating contract represents an opportunity to expand its inland logistics reach and strengthen rail-based freight connections.

“The final award of the Júndiz rail terminal contract is wonderful news for Álava, the Basque Country and the Port of Bilbao,” said Ivan Jimenez Aira, President of the Bilbao Port Authority.

“It represents recognition of a solid and ambitious project, the result of collaboration between public institutions and private companies that share the same strategic vision,” he added.

Jimenez also highlighted the importance of improving rail connectivity and developing more competitive logistics services for companies operating in the region.

The participation of MEDLOG alongside the two port authorities brings together shipping-related logistics operations and public infrastructure stakeholders within a single terminal management structure.

The consortium aims to increase rail freight activity, improve regional logistics competitiveness and reinforce Álava’s position as an inland freight hub serving the Atlantic Corridor.

ClassNK releases new framework for onboard carbon capture systems

Japanese classification society ClassNK has released a new handbook providing guidance on the implementation of onboard carbon capture systems (OCCS), addressing the technical, regulatory and infrastructure requirements involved in capturing and managing carbon dioxide emissions from ships.

Published on October 23, 2026, the handbook, titled Onboard Carbon Capture Systems Implementation Framework, forms part of ClassNK’s Handbook on Ship GHG Emissions Evaluation series.

The publication is intended to support shipowners, operators and other maritime stakeholders considering the introduction of onboard carbon capture technology, providing a framework for assessing projects across the entire CO₂ management value chain.

According to ClassNK, successful implementation requires more than the installation of capture equipment aboard vessels. It also depends on the availability of infrastructure for unloading, transporting, storing or utilising captured CO₂, alongside reliable mechanisms for measuring and verifying emissions reductions.

Addressing the full carbon capture value chain

Onboard carbon capture systems are designed to capture CO₂ from ship exhaust gases, process it and temporarily store it aboard vessels before transferring it for further handling.

While the technology is being explored as a potential option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, its implementation involves technical and operational considerations extending beyond the vessel itself.

The new handbook brings together requirements relating to onboard capture and storage, shoreside infrastructure, regulatory considerations and emissions-reduction assessment.

Particular attention is given to Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) frameworks, which support the measurement and verification of emissions and emission reductions.

The publication also addresses Chain of Custody (CoC) systems, which enable the tracking and management of captured CO₂ and its associated information throughout the supply chain.

These mechanisms are relevant to determining how captured carbon is handled after leaving a vessel and how the resulting emissions reductions can be quantified and verified.

Supporting maritime decarbonisation projects

The publication builds on ClassNK’s previous work on onboard carbon capture technology, including its Guidelines for Onboard CO₂ Capture and Storage Systems.

Through those guidelines, the classification society has developed safety and technical requirements for onboard capture and storage arrangements while accumulating knowledge from demonstration projects and greenhouse gas certification activities.

The new handbook takes a broader approach by bringing together the considerations involved in planning and evaluating an entire OCCS project.

ClassNK said the document is intended to facilitate discussions among relevant stakeholders and support the assessment of specific carbon capture initiatives.

The guidance comes as the maritime industry continues to explore different approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including energy-efficiency improvements, alternative fuels and technologies capable of capturing emissions directly from vessel exhaust systems.

ClassNK stated that it will continue supporting maritime decarbonisation efforts through the provision of technical information and guidance.

The Onboard Carbon Capture Systems Implementation Framework is available through the classification society’s Transition Support Services website and its MyPage technical publications platform.

China tightens export oversight with new technology and drone controls

China has announced new export control measures covering selected advanced technologies and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), introducing additional compliance requirements for exporters and international logistics providers.

The measures, outlined in separate announcements by China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) in October 2026, affect technology transfers, export authorizations and customs documentation.

While some requirements have already taken effect, further controls are scheduled to become applicable in November, giving businesses different deadlines to assess their export compliance obligations.

New requirements for advanced technologies

Under Announcement No. 48 of 2026, MOFCOM and the Ministry of Science and Technology proposed adding 40 technologies to China’s Catalogue of Technologies Prohibited or Restricted from Export.

The proposed additions cover 23 artificial intelligence-related technologies, five biomedical technologies and 12 photovoltaic technologies. The scope also includes certain core equipment incorporating or utilizing the technologies concerned.

The proposed changes remain open for public comment until November 15, 2026.

However, an interim export pre-registration requirement took effect when the announcement was published. According to logistics provider Expeditors, this requirement also applies to covered transactions that have already commenced but remain incomplete, including certain shipments in transit.

The distinction is important for exporters, as the proposed catalogue amendments are not yet finalized, while the interim registration obligation is already applicable.

Additional controls on unmanned aerial vehicles

In a separate measure, MOFCOM, the General Administration of Customs and the Central Military Commission Equipment Development Department announced updated export controls covering specified UAVs and related technologies.

The controls extend to certain engines, autopilots, communication equipment, motors, propeller blades, flight-control systems and autonomous-navigation technologies.

Beginning November 18, 2026, exports of covered items will require authorization under China’s applicable export control framework.

Exporters will also need to provide relevant technical information in customs declarations, including for certain products with specifications close to those of controlled items.

China’s Dual-Use Items Export Control List will be updated alongside the implementation of the new measures.

Implications for international shipments

The announcements introduce additional compliance considerations for companies handling technology-related exports from China.

Freight forwarders, customs brokers and exporters will need to distinguish between technology transfers subject to interim registration requirements and UAV-related products requiring export authorization from November 18.

The measures also underline the importance of accurate product classification and technical documentation, particularly where equipment specifications determine whether export controls apply.

For shipments already underway, the interim registration provisions may require additional checks to establish whether a transaction falls within the scope of the new requirements.

The announcements do not establish a general prohibition on exports of all AI, biomedical, photovoltaic or drone-related products. Their application depends on the technologies, items and technical specifications covered by the respective measures.

Hambantota Port sees new opportunities as container ships return to Suez

Hambantota International Port Group (HIPG) expects a sustained return of container shipping through the Red Sea and Suez Canal to create new commercial opportunities for the Sri Lankan port, as it prepares to expand its container handling capabilities.

The port operator believes that the restoration of the established East–West shipping corridor could strengthen Hambantota’s position in regional transshipment networks, while supporting demand for bunkering, ship supplies and other marine services.

The outlook follows an October 2026 assessment by maritime consultancy Linerlytica, which forecasts a full-scale return of container shipping to the Suez route by the first quarter of 2027. However, the pace of any recovery remains dependent on security conditions and individual shipping lines’ operational decisions.

Located approximately ten nautical miles from the main East–West shipping route, Hambantota is seeking to capitalise on its geographical position as carriers reconsider diversions around the Cape of Good Hope.

Suez recovery could support Hambantota’s container ambitions

According to HIPG, disruptions in the Red Sea initially accelerated the development of Hambantota’s container transshipment business, as congestion at the Port of Colombo created demand for additional handling capacity.

The port began accommodating overflow cargo in April 2024 and launched its inaugural MSC container transshipment service on April 9 of that year.

“The Red Sea disruption advanced our container project. Congestion in Colombo Port created a requirement for additional capacity, and we began accommodating overflow cargo with the resources available to us in April 2024,” said Bindu Ranasinghe, General Manager – Commercial and Marketing at HIPG.

“That experience encouraged us to proceed with a full-scale operation and further investment. With expanded capacity coming into place, we welcome the prospect of shipping returning more fully to the Suez route,” Ranasinghe added.

As part of its expansion programme, HIPG has committed US$149 million to new container handling equipment, with annual container handling capacity targeted to reach two million TEUs during the first quarter of 2027.

The company expects that a sustained return to the Suez corridor could make Hambantota more attractive to shipping lines operating between Asia and Europe.

“When vessels use the established East–West route through Suez, they pass much closer to Hambantota. We have used the period of disruption to expand our capabilities, and a sustained return to that route would give us a stronger opportunity to attract business,” Ranasinghe said.

Beyond container transshipment, HIPG anticipates additional opportunities in bunkering and vessel support services as more shipping activity potentially shifts back towards the traditional route.

Gateway cargo and regional connections form part of growth strategy

HIPG is also seeking to diversify Hambantota’s container business by developing gateway cargo for Sri Lankan importers and exporters, alongside its existing transshipment operations.

The port’s industrial park, nearby Board of Investment zones and proposed industrial developments are expected to support the establishment of a domestic cargo base.

A planned container inspection centre is intended to facilitate gateway operations, with benefits anticipated from the first quarter of 2027.

“To attract more shipping lines and services, we also need gateway cargo,” Ranasinghe said. “Industrial development within and around the port, together with the inspection facilities we are establishing, will help create the conditions for that business to grow.”

Meanwhile, HIPG is assessing the longer-term potential of alternative cargo connections developed during disruptions affecting access to ports in the Persian Gulf.

Hambantota has handled transshipment cargo for onward feeder services to accessible regional ports, providing alternative arrangements for shipping lines and their customers.

Although improved access to Gulf ports could lead some cargo to return to previous routes, HIPG believes that existing commercial commitments, service networks, insurance conditions and security considerations will influence future decisions.

“Shipping lines and their customers have established alternative arrangements, and those networks will not necessarily change immediately,” Ranasinghe said.

The company maintains that connections established through Hambantota could remain commercially relevant even as regional shipping conditions improve.

HIPG’s broader strategy is to combine container transshipment, gateway cargo, industrial development and marine services to establish a more diversified business as shipping networks across the region evolve.

Europe’s container ports: Why is transshipment falling while gateway traffic grows?

Europe’s major container ports are reporting increasingly contrasting traffic patterns in 2026, with headline throughput figures concealing significant changes in the composition of cargo flows.

At Rotterdam and Valencia, transshipment volumes have declined substantially during the first nine months of the year, while traffic linked to imports and inland markets has strengthened. Antwerp-Bruges presents a different picture, with modest overall container growth driven by empty rather than full containers.

The figures raise an important question for Europe’s port sector: are changes in terminal capacity, cargo demand and shipping networks altering the balance between transshipment and gateway activity?

The available evidence points to changes at individual ports rather than a confirmed Europe-wide shift.

Rotterdam: Terminal capacity reshapes cargo flows

According to the Port of Rotterdam Authority’s nine-month results, container throughput increased by just 0.1% in TEUs during January–September 2026, while containerised cargo measured in tonnes declined by 2.2%.

Behind the relatively stable headline figure, however, two sharply different trends emerged.

Transshipment throughput fell by 20%, while hinterland container volumes increased by 7.2%. Full-container imports serving inland markets rose by 8.9%, compared with growth of just 1% in full-container exports.

The explanation provided by the port authority is particularly significant.

Long-standing capacity constraints at Rotterdam’s deep-sea terminals have resulted in more cargo being handled through alternative ports, freeing capacity for containers moving to and from the hinterland.

This suggests that Rotterdam’s changing cargo mix cannot be attributed solely to shifts in underlying demand. Terminal capacity and operational constraints are also influencing which cargo flows remain within the port.

As Container News reported, the decline in transshipment has occurred alongside continued growth in inland-linked traffic.

For terminal operators and shipping lines, the distinction matters. Transshipment containers depend heavily on vessel connections and network design, whereas gateway cargo also relies on inland distribution infrastructure and access to regional markets.

Rotterdam’s results therefore illustrate how operational limitations can influence the balance between these activities without producing a comparable decline in total TEUs.

Valencia: Stronger imports, weaker transshipment

Valencia is experiencing a similar divergence in traffic categories, although the available figures do not establish the same underlying cause.

According to Valenciaport’s September traffic report, total container throughput declined by 0.91% during the first nine months of 2026, reaching approximately 4.2 million TEUs.

Full-container imports increased by 10.02% to 856,431 TEUs, while full-container exports rose marginally by 0.31% to 681,113 TEUs.

In contrast, full containers handled in transshipment fell by 9.81% to 1,552,065 units.

The difference is substantial. Valencia is recording stronger inbound container activity while losing volume in a segment that remains central to its position within Mediterranean shipping networks.

However, the latest monthly figures introduce an important qualification.

During September alone, full-container transshipment declined by just 0.82%, a considerably smaller reduction than the cumulative nine-month figure. Meanwhile, full-container imports increased by 11.68% and exports by 5.68%.

As highlighted in Container News’ coverage of Valenciaport’s latest results, September’s performance suggests that the earlier decline in transshipment was moderating.

This makes it premature to describe Valencia’s weaker transshipment performance as a permanent structural change.

Unlike Rotterdam, where the port authority explicitly identified terminal capacity constraints, Valencia’s published figures do not establish a single comparable explanation for the reduction.

Antwerp-Bruges: More TEUs do not necessarily mean more full containers

The Port of Antwerp-Bruges’ nine-month results provide a third perspective on Europe’s changing container traffic.

Total container throughput increased by 1.2% in TEUs, supported by a strong recovery during the third quarter.

Yet full-container throughput declined by 1.3%, while empty-container movements increased by 11.7%.

The port authority linked this development to rising import volumes and pressure on exports, which increased the need to reposition empty equipment, particularly towards Asia.

This distinction demonstrates why total TEU growth cannot automatically be interpreted as an equivalent increase in laden cargo activity.

A port can report higher container volumes while handling fewer full containers, depending on the balance between imports, exports and empty-equipment movements.

Antwerp-Bruges also illustrates a limitation of direct port comparisons. Its published nine-month figures do not provide the same transshipment breakdown available for Rotterdam and Valencia.

Consequently, its performance is useful for understanding the changing composition of European container traffic, but not for establishing whether transshipment is declining across the region.

What the differences mean for European port competition

Taken together, the three ports reveal a more complex picture than their aggregate throughput growth rates suggest.

Rotterdam’s transshipment decline is explicitly associated with deep-sea terminal capacity constraints. Valencia combines weaker cumulative transshipment with stronger imports and a recent moderation in the decline. Antwerp-Bruges shows how empty-container repositioning can support overall TEU growth even as full-container traffic contracts.

These developments also highlight the importance of distinguishing actual container movements from the nominal vessel capacity deployed by shipping lines.

Changes in service rotations and port calls may influence future traffic distribution, but announced network capacity cannot be treated as evidence of equivalent cargo volumes.

For European ports, the competitive implications will depend on whether current changes persist, how terminal capacity develops and whether shipping lines continue adjusting their networks.

The next reporting periods will be particularly important for Valencia, where September’s figures suggest improving transshipment performance, and for Rotterdam, where capacity constraints remain a documented factor.

The central finding is not that Europe’s ports are collectively moving away from transshipment. It is that the relationship between transshipment, gateway cargo and total container throughput is becoming increasingly important to understanding their individual performance.

///                  Air Cargo News             ///

UK’s East Midlands Airport wins another freighter service

Image: © East Midlands Airport

The UK’s East Midlands Airport has this week welcomed another freighter service connecting the Midlands airport with China.

The Central China Longhao Airlines’, also known as Air Central, service, will operate twice per week between East Midlands Airport and Zhengzhou Xinzheng International Airport.

Airbus shaping up to become world’s top freighter manufacturer

Gone are the days when Airbus viewed the construction of cargo aircraft as a less-than-attractive venture. Today, the company offers a wide range of aircraft, from small cargo planes to large variants, closing the decades-long gap that existedbetween itself and Boeing in the freighter segment. This applies not only to new aircraft but also to the conversion of passenger aircraft into cargo planes.

Company executives provided detailed insights into the current program and the business outlook during a video conference on Thursday 21OCT26, in Nashville, Tennessee, at the presentation of the plane maker’s Global Market Forecast 2026.

The key message from Francois Cabaret, Head of Global Market Forecast at Airbus, is: Cargo traffic will continue to grow over the next two decades at an average annual rate of 3.2%, rising from 280 billion freight ton kilometers in 2025, to an expected 530 billion FTK in 2045. As in previous years, the volumes transported are widely split across various markets.

Two trade lanes stand out in particular: Asia-Pacific will continue to be the leading region for international air cargo traffic, with routes to North America being the largest (3.8% annual growth rate), followed by Europe/CIS at 2.4%.

    Number of commercial freighters that Airbus expects to enter the                                market until 2045  –  chart: Airbus

2,640 newbuilds expected until 2025

In light of growing markets – despite geopolitical crises and ongoing regional tensions – Airbus experts anticipate a total demand of 3,460 commercial freighters by 2045. Of these, 2,670 units will be newbuilds, while 790 aircraft from the current fleet will still be in service come 2045.

Regional demand will be led by North America and Asia-Pacific, requiring 925 and 850 aircraft respectively and together accounting for two-thirds of total global demand. Demand in Europe and CIS will reach 515 aircraft, followed by Latin America with 165, the Middle East with 125, and Africa with 90.

P2F conversions account for a large portion of demand

An increasing number of previous-generation freighters will be retired and replaced by highly efficient next-generation freighters over the next 20 years. This includes newbuild models such as the A350F or the future B777-8F, as well as passenger-to-freighter conversions across the A320, A321, and A330 families, helping operators lower fuel consumption and reduce carbon emissions.

While air cargo accounts for less than 1% of global trade volume by weight, it carries more than 30% of total trade by value, proving it to be a vital mode of transport for goods requiring the quickest routes to market. In the last three years, computers and high-technology goods in air cargo have doubled in value, reaching 15% in 2026. E-commerce also keeps growing but to a lesser extent.

No freighter production in Mobile

Regarding Airbus’ contribution, Francois Cabaret pointed to the successful flight tests program of the A350F. “The cargo aircraft is meeting and even exceeding our expectations,” he emphasized at the event in Nashville. He confirmed that the aircraft will be delivered to the launch customer, CMA CGM, in the second half of next year.

According to the Airbus executive, there are now a total of 115 firm orders for the new freighter, representing a 57% market share in this class. When asked by CargoForwarder Global whether Airbus plans to manufacture cargo aircraft at its U.S. production site in Mobile in the foreseeable future, Cabaret explained that there are currently no such plans. The distribution of the individual models across the various plants – with Toulouse and Hamburg as the main sites – is very balanced and structured.

CFRP vs Aluminum

At the Nashville event, he took a small jab at Boeing and its competing product. He pointed out that the Boeing 777-8F is not expected to enter service until late 2028 – some sources even speak of 2029, provided there are no further delays in the production program.

By then, the first A350s will have long been in service. The Airbus freighter can carry up to 111 metric tons of cargo, while the B777-8F has a maximum payload of 118 metric tons, according to figures from the manufacturers. While the A350F is made entirely of carbon-fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP), which makes it relatively light and thus fuel-efficient, the U.S. frame maker has opted for aluminium for the fuselage of the B777-8F.

Kales is heading north

The Amsterdam-based GSSA has opened a station in Reykjavík – this is Kales’ first office in Iceland and its 80^th worldwide. It is a joint venture with local partner TVG-Zimsen, the freight forwarding and logistics arm of Eimskip, a leading maritime transport company in the Nordic country. By far the most important export is fresh seafood.

CEO, Sebastiaan Scholte, and Adam Gunnarsson, VP at Kales Group, have probably already stocked up on warm winter clothing. That is because they are likely to be traveling to Iceland more often during the coming months, when winter temperatures can drop to -10°C to -15°C. The reason for their trips to the volcanic island in the North Atlantic: the establishment of a branch office aimed at consolidating and expanding Kales’ market position on the outskirts of Europe.

L > R: Rafael Mana, TVG-Zimsen / Adam Gunnarson, Kales Group / Sebastiaan Scholte, Kales Group / Bjoern Einarson, Eimskip / Jannis Moraitis, Kales Iceland – photo: credit Kales Iceland.

Air China Cargo is the first customer

The newcomer is not starting from scratch. It has already secured Air China Cargo as a major client. The Chinese airline operates three weekly flights, using an A330-300 jetliner to connect Beijing via Copenhagen with Reykjavik. “We are responsible for marketing the capacity on the return flight to Beijing. Since we are also the Chinese airline’s partner in Copenhagen, we can find the most advantageous solution for our customers depending on volume and rate conditions,” explains Manager Scholte.

Sharing of responsibilities

To achieve their intended market penetration, Kales and its partner, TVG Zimsen intend to leverage their respective areas of expertise in a targeted manner. While Kales Group contributes international airline representation experience and an established airline network spanning 39 countries, TVG-Zimsen’s strengths are its expertise of the local market situation and its deep routed customer relationships.

“By combining Kales’ international experience and airline network with TVG-Zimsen’s local market knowledge, we have a strong foundation for developing Kales Iceland. Our ambition is to build a professional, independent and commercially focused GSSA organization that creates value for our airline principals and for the entire Icelandic cargo community,” notes CEO, Sebastiaan Scholte. Per flight, the A330-300 operated by Air China can accommodate between 10 and 15 tons of cargo in the aircraft’s lower deck compartments.

Providing neutral services

Kales emphasizes that the joint venture will provide neutral GSSA services to airlines operating in the Icelandic market. It remains to be seen whether they will succeed in acquiring one of the roughly dozen airlines serving Iceland.

“The establishment of Kales Iceland represents an exciting new chapter for airline representation in Iceland. By combining TVG-Zimsen’s understanding of the Icelandic market with Kales’ international GSSA expertise and airline network, we are creating a strong foundation for airlines looking to develop their business in Iceland,” emphasizes Raffaele Manna, Managing Director of TVG-Zimsen.

Seafood and more

As far as exports are concerned, electronics and general cargo are among the most important goods, alongside the main product: seafood. Icelandic exporters, particularly those shipping fresh salmon and other time-and temperature critical products, gain a new route to reach customers in the Chinese market. At the same time, importers benefit from a new scheduled freight connection and greater access to goods and suppliers in China, states a press release published by Kales Iceland, the new GSSA’s shared name. However, Kales is not responsible for the import business.

Africa’s gaps in aviation fuel supply are narrowing

At the African Refiners and Distributors Association (ARDA) Storage, Distribution & Jet Fuel Forum 2026 in Nairobi (20–22OCT26), a framework addressing a critical bottleneck choking African aviation was presented: fuel security and refining infrastructure. This article sets out that analysis, with particular attention to what it means for air cargo.

Policy frameworks – Single African Air Transport Market (SAATM), with 38 signatory nations, and the African Continental Free Trade Area’s (AfCFTA) 90% tariff elimination target – are expanding continental trade potential. But the missing link remains downstream energy infrastructure. For cargo operators, forwarders and perishable exporters, that deficit translates directly into inflated costs, supply chain vulnerability and compliance exposure.

At the ARDA conference, Bernard Oguso presented new ways for the African aviation industry to achieve self-sufficiency in kerosene production and supply, including SAF – courtesy of ARDA.

The Operational Paradox

Africa holds 18% of the global population but generates just 2% of worldwide air traffic. IATA projects passenger demand growing 3.6% annually through 2050, with intra-African routes at 4.9% — the fastest globally. For 16 landlocked nations, air freight is the only viable trade corridor.
African carriers face three structural disadvantages. First, a 17% fuel premium on Jet A-1, driven by reliance on imported distillates and single-corridor routes. Second, reserve fragility: Gulf corridor disruptions left Johannesburg with only five days of cover. Passenger airlines face delays; cargo operators face cancelled consignments and contractual penalties. Third, cold-chain exposure: at Nairobi JKIA, where daily burn reaches roughly 2.9 million liters, a fuel shortfall breaks the cold chain outright. Perishable freight cannot be warehoused or rebooked without total loss of value.

Pricing Mechanics: The West African Pivot

A central argument was the shift from European price benchmarking to localized discovery. On 01JUN26, Platts (S&P Global Energy) launched a daily FOB West Africa assessment for jet fuel meeting DEFSTAN 91-091 specifications ***^1), time-stamped 16:30 London in $/mt and reflecting 20,000–40,000 mt cargoes loading out of Lekki and Lagos. Complemented by the established STS Lomé offshore assessment***²⁾ for 5,000–10,000 mt parcels, these benchmarks eliminate unnecessary European freight netbacks for African buyers.

Platts data also shows Nigeria’s Dangote Refinery — expanding from 650,000 to 700,000 b/d — re-orienting middle distillates toward regional hubs. With West Africa–Europe freight rates spiking, Dangote priced coastal offers at small discounts to STS Lomé, shipping direct to South Africa (45,000 mt) and Namibia (46,000 mt) to cover acute regional tightness.

Upstream Blending and Hydrant Limits

As refiners expand — Dangote’s distillates, Ethiopia’s $12.5 billion Bishoftu hub, Egypt’s 200,000-tonne Bio-SAF Suez facility, and Kenya Airways’ €60–70 million MoU with multinational RUBiS SCA standards, which focus on environmental safety, industrial risk mitigation, and structural certifications, dictate where blending occurs.

Pure SAF must be blended upstream at the refinery with fossil Jet A-1 to produce Semi-Synthetic Jet Fuel certified to ASTM D1655 ***³⁾ Gateways like JKIA are engineered for bulk storage, not inline chemical blending.

Cargo is the offtake anchor. Refiners will not finance upstream blending without guaranteed throughput, and JKIA’s ~2.9 million liters daily makes cargo operators and perishables exporters the demand anchor that renders refinery investment bankable.

The SAF Compliance Trap

The EU operates volume-based mandatory mandates — 2.0% in 2026, 6.0% by 2030 (including 1.2% PtL), scaling to 70% by 2050 under ReFuelEU. The UK is energy-based: 2.0% in 2026, 10.0% by 2030. Germany mandates 0.5% PtL. The U.S. relies on supply-side tax incentives without penalizing uplift.
The consequence is a 4–7x price multiplier: carriers uplifting at EU airports must buy SAF at four to seven times conventional Jet A-1.

African airlines lack the scale and subsidies to absorb this. As previously warned, if regional carriers are financially weakened by European mandates, local refiners lose their primary anchor offtakers. Cargo operators, running thinner margins than passenger lines, risk losing volume to foreign hubs if costs are passed to shippers.

Monetizing Attributes, Building Resilience

Book & Claim (SAFc) accounting lets African operators keep locally refined physical fuel on the continent while selling environmental attributes to global corporations for hard currency — avoiding the value-destroying cycle of exporting raw feedstocks only to buy back processed SAF at inflated rates.

Carbon credits from waste feedstocks require a government Letter of Authorization; as described in the presentation, “No LoA = No Transaction Clarity.”
COVID-era lessons now shape resilience architecture: contracted continuity for essential cargo flights during commercial groundings; Book & Claim revenue continuity when physical uplift plummets; joint Health, Energy and Transport ministry governance from Day 1; and expanded on-site storage at key cargo hubs.

Closing the Gap

Drawing on 31 years in the sector – 18 across Eni, Shell and TotalEnergies, plus 13 in sustainability consulting – I framed the solution around three pillars: technical experts (JIG, IATA, ICAO, refiners) provide the standards; policy architects (SAATM, AfCFTA) provide the market; financial institutions provide the capital. What was missing was an operating manual connecting them into bankable deals – now addressed by The Fueling African Aviation Trilogy, recognized by Germany’s aireg at ILA Berlin as a world-first practitioner text.

For African air cargo to convert its 4.9% growth forecast into durable capacity, refiners, airport authorities and forwarders must align around localized refining, Platts-indexed pricing, upstream SAF blending and Book & Claim trading.
Physical fuel stays on the continent; green attributes bring foreign value home.

***¹⁾ Defence Standard 91-091 outlines the specifications for aviation turbine fuel, particularly Jet A-1.

***²⁾ The STS Lomé offshore assessment refers to the daily commodity price and market evaluations for ship-to-ship (STS) petroleum product transfers conducted in the offshore anchorage zone of Lomé, Togo. ***³⁾ ASTM D1655: The baseline specification for conventional, petroleum-derived commercial aviation turbine fuels (Jet A and Jet A-1).

Author:
Bernard Onguso, Kenya-based Independent Aviation Energy Strategist.

Corporate buyers could help scale SAF market by 2030

A new study by IATA, Airbus, and Accenture, identifies significant growth potential for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) certificates. The book-and-claim model could help airlines recover SAF costs and give corporate customers a more flexible way to address transport-related emissions.

Corporate purchases of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) Environmental Attribute Certificates (EAc) could support between 1.0 million and 1.9 million metric tons of SAF annually by 2030, according to a study by the International Air Transport Association (IATA), Airbus, and Accenture. That compares with an estimated 323,000 metric tons in 2024. Realizing this potential will depend on whether companies can purchase certificates under clear, credible, and commercially workable conditions.

The market opportunity comes as SAF remains scarce and expensive. Global production is expected to reach 2.4 million metric tons in 2026, equivalent to just 0.8% of total jet fuel consumption. SAF typically costs two to three times as much as conventional jet fuel, leaving airlines with a substantial additional expense as they seek to reduce emissions.

The study identifies corporate customers as a potential source of funding to help bridge this gap. Rather than leaving airlines shouldering the SAF premium alone, the model would allow companies purchasing air transportation services to contribute directly to the energy transition.

More SAF means fewer greenhouse gas emissions in aviation – illustration: CFG/ak

Separating physical fuel from environmental attributes

Under conventional fuel procurement, airlines buy the kerosene required to operate their aircraft and bear the associated costs. Using SAF instead adds a premium that carriers may struggle to recover in a competitive market.

The book-and-claim model separates the physical fuel from its environmental attributes. Companies can purchase certificates representing verified emissions reductions without requiring the SAF itself to be delivered to the airport serving their own flight or cargo shipment. The fuel is supplied and consumed elsewhere, while its environmental attributes are transferred to the buyer through a traceable system.

For air cargo customers, this offers a way to address eligible Scope 3 emissions associated with purchased transportation services. Shippers can contribute to SAF deployment without having to arrange physical fuel delivery for their particular shipments. The certificates therefore do not replace conventional fuel procurement; they provide a separate mechanism to finance and account for emissions reductions.

For airlines, the potential benefit is the ability to recover part of the SAF premium from customers with emissions-reduction targets. Instead of relying exclusively on their own budgets or passing higher costs through general freight rates, carriers could develop a specific offering for corporate customers.

Price and accounting rules remain obstacles

The study estimates that SAF certificates typically cost between USD 150 and USD 500 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) emissions avoided. Companies surveyed indicate a willingness to pay closer to USD 300 per metric ton of CO₂e.

These figures cannot be directly compared with the price of conventional kerosene per metric ton of fuel. The two options measure different things: one covers environmental attributes associated with emissions reductions, while the other covers a physical fuel used to operate aircraft.

The economic case for certificates lies in separating the cost of emissions reductions from the cost of operating the aircraft. Companies can purchase a defined quantity of environmental attributes without requiring physical SAF for their own shipments. This can make participation possible even where SAF is unavailable at the relevant airport or physical fuel procurement would be prohibitively expensive.

However, certificates are not automatically cheaper in every case. Their value depends on the emissions reductions they represent, the volume purchased, applicable accounting rules, and the price of alternative emissions-reduction measures. For airlines, certificate sales can help recover SAF-related costs, but only if customer revenue covers the relevant premium and administrative expenses.

Corporate participation remains limited. According to Accenture, only around 15% of surveyed companies currently purchase SAF certificates. Many others are waiting for lower prices, clearer carbon accounting rules, and simpler purchasing processes.

The study identifies three priorities for expanding the market: consistent accounting rules, transparent and interoperable tracking systems, and simpler purchasing mechanisms. Greater price transparency, lower minimum purchase volumes, and shorter contract periods could make certificates accessible to a wider range of businesses.

A potential competitive advantage, not a guaranteed saving

For the system to gain credibility, environmental attributes must be tracked so that the same emissions reduction cannot be claimed twice. Companies also need confidence that their purchases will be recognized under the accounting frameworks they use.

For airlines, the commercial challenge is in turning certificates into a credible customer offering. Carriers need systems to sell certificates, recover SAF-related costs, and provide verifiable emissions data. Those that establish these capabilities could be better positioned to win business from customers seeking documented progress toward their emissions targets.

The competitive advantage is not that certificates make conventional kerosene cheaper or automatically reduce an airline’s operating costs. Rather, they could create an additional revenue stream to help finance SAF’s price premium and give airlines a way to differentiate their services.

For shippers, they offer a flexible mechanism to contribute to emissions reductions without being tied to the location of fuel delivery. Whether this becomes a meaningful commercial advantage will depend on certificate prices, the credibility of emissions claims, and customers’ willingness to pay.

Certificates could broaden the funding base for SAF, but they cannot replace the need to expand physical production. With SAF expected to account for just 0.8% of global jet fuel use in 2026, the industry’s central challenge remains increasing supply while bringing costs down.

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.