IATA accuses Adani of 'capacity gaming' over Mumbai freighter ban
Adani Group-managed Mumbai International Airport (MIAL) is facing pushback from industry groups over a recent decision ...
© Khunaspix Dreamstime.
Dear IATA,
In your recently published Annual Review there is a small, but disturbing, graph that shows how global passenger and cargo loadfactors developed between 2000 and 2016. While the passenger loadfactor increased from around 70% to close to 80%, the cargo loadfactor moved sideways between 45% and 50%.
However, the published cargo loadfactors are distorted and misleading. The root cause for these distorted analyses, is the method through which these particular cargo loadfactors are calculated.
The industry’s standard of dividing freight tonne kilometres ...
Comment on this article
David Harris
September 04, 2017 at 2:56 amBut even after switching from weight-based to volume-based load factors, there is still the problem of useful capacity vs. non-useful capacity. That is, belly space on routes with little or no cargo demand, and belly space in the aircraft in many low-cost carrier fleets, may be theoretically “available”, but including it in the capacity part of the load-factor equation just distorts the result.
Joy Banerjee
September 06, 2017 at 1:19 amThere are some valid points in this letter. Unfortunately cargo load factors will always rely upon certain assumptions. Cargo capacity on a given aircraft type is quite variable, depending on the route, the prevailing weather pattern, the passenger configuration (more economy seats, more bags, less cargo capacity), etc.
The challenge in switching from a weight based load factor to a volume based load factor lies not only in its reporting (internally airlines may report volume, however at many airports they report weight), but also in the question of how to draw historic comparisons.
Nevertheless a discussion is warranted, and the solution may not be as complicated as it may seem. Possibly start with a review of pivot weights per ULD?