News / 'Bizarre' direct air waybill revamp a 'game-changer' for forwarders

Photo: © Kiosea39 | Dreamstime.com

NOTE: This story was updated at 15:55 BST to include a statement from IATA. 

Freight forwarders could face significant new legal and insurance risks under changes to IATA’s Direct Air Waybill (DAWB) framework that took effect today.

According to FIATA, the industry’s agreed review process has effectively been bypassed. 

The revised IATA Direct Air Waybill (DAWB) framework is intended to change the contractual relationship between airlines, shippers, and forwarders, potentially making forwarders responsible for obligations traditionally borne by the shipper.  

Critics, including FIATA, argued that this could leave forwarders liable for claims relating to cargo they neither own, pack, nor control, such as misdeclared dangerous goods or damaged shipments. 

In a strongly worded statement yesterday, FIATA argued that amendments adopted by the IATA Cargo Agency Conference under an expedited procedure had been allowed to take effect before the formal review process, under Cargo Agency Conference Resolution 801c, could be completed.  

The association said it had repeatedly requested an urgent meeting of the IATA-FIATA Consultative Council (IFCC) to examine the legal, operational, and insurance implications of the changes, but the review had not been concluded before the implementation date. 

“As a result, the review mechanism established under the Cargo Agency Conference Resolutions has been deprived of its intended effect,” FIATA said. It wanted the revisions to be deferred until October. 

The association warned that, in the absence of a completed review, airlines should clearly state whether they would continue accepting DAWB shipments under the existing framework, or explain how the revised arrangements would operate in practice. 

FIATA director general Stéphane Graber said: “Freight forwarders cannot reasonably be expected to assume significant new contractual obligations or liabilities outside their function without legal certainty or a proper opportunity to assess the resulting operational and insurance implications.” 

However, IATA assured The Loadstar that “the required consultation process has been followed, and the agreed revised resolution is being implemented in accordance with IATA Traffic Conference governance”.

“The revised resolutions and recommended practices provide an appropriate rebalancing of benefits and responsibilities between forwarders and airlines,” it explained.

FIATA indicated it had already received information that “implementation may differ between airlines”, with some carriers reportedly not intending to implement the revised framework today.  

One senio forwarder told The Loadstar the implications had been “very much understated, and probably not recognised for relevance and potential impact”. 

“It is a game-changer for the industry beyond comprehension. Nothing like it has occurred for the past century.” 

The source explained: “Worst scenario – a hazardous shipment of acid leaks and causes a major incident with an airline and it can be proved that this is down to a specific shipment. The booking agent has full liability for the aircraft and the outcome of a major disaster and the ensuing turmoil of claims that follow, not the airline.” 

They described the concept as “bizarre”, due to so much being out of the control of the freight booking agent shown on the DAWB.

“If freight is damaged in the control of a carrier how can the booking agent be liable? If freight is not security screened correctly how can the booking agent, in most circumstances, be held liable?”

The source likened the proposal to a property transaction where “the estate agent holds all the liability and is responsible for anything that goes wrong before, during or after the house purchase”. 

They also noted that getting insurance cover would now be a concern, “as the liability is open ended” and therefore cost-prohibitive if full liability and potential consequences are underwritten and covered fully. 

While large multinational forwarders might have the financial resources to absorb such exposure, he argued, smaller operators would struggle. 

“This really is lunacy of the top tier in its format, its logic, and the implementation overnight. It needs to be deferred,” they urged. 

Indeed, another forwarder told The Loadstar: “The DAWB change is astonishing…I’ve only just heard it’s due to be enforced.”

And a more candid WhatsApp message said: “Didn’t think the fuckwits would actually follow through and do it.” 

Brandon Fried, executive director of the Airforwarders Association (AfA), said: “The core problem is that a forwarder can end up treated as the contractual shipper, even when the real shipper is named right there on the waybill.

“Once that happens, you’re potentially on the hook for things you never controlled and often can’t even see – how the cargo was packed, what’s actually inside the box, concealed dangerous goods, a misdeclaration by the shipper. Liability is supposed to follow whoever creates and controls the risk. This blurs that line.” 

He also questioned whether existing insurance policies would respond. 

“Forwarder liability cover is written around what forwarders actually do, not around shipper obligations. If you suddenly pick up shipper-level exposure, there’s a real question whether your policy responds at all. That means coverage gaps and higher premiums, and the firms least able to absorb it are the small and mid-size forwarders who make up most of this market.” 

Mr Fried said the lack of a completed review had left the industry without clear guidance on implementation, and the “worrying” notion of inconsistent application across airlines. 

“FIATA has already said it’s hearing that some airlines don’t plan to implement on 1 July, while others do. IATA’s own guidance tells forwarders to talk to each airline directly and settle contractual terms before tendering cargo. That’s close to an admission that there’s no single rulebook on day one.” 

He advised forwarders to obtain written confirmation from each airline on which framework was being applied and to check with insurers whether existing policies would respond if they were treated as the contractual shipper. 

IATA told The Loadstar that this change to DAWB “is particularly timely given the growth in e-commerce shipments of dangerous goods, such as those including lithium batteries”.