“Do you know what FIATA really stands for?” asked one forwarder, years ago – “Fuck IATA”.
In the decade and a half that The Loadstar has covered the ins and outs of IATA, its members, its love of cash, and its relationship with air cargo customers, that answer has often seemed justified. IATA – often compared with that other apparently infinitely wealthy Zurich-based association, FIFA – has a tendency to act unilaterally, without a care for its partners or members’ customers.
And here we go again. Sources at WCS in Peru earlier this year noted that there was a new disagreement between IATA and FIATA coming down the road – and it’s now arrived.
The latest bust-up is ostensibly about changes to the Direct Air Waybill (DAWB) framework.
In reality, it is about something far bigger: who controls air cargo.
For years, airlines and freight forwarders have maintained an uneasy peace, periodically interrupted by rows over governance, money, liability, and power. But FIATA’s extraordinary public attack on IATA today suggests relations have deteriorated again.
The freight forwarding association has formally challenged proposed IATA changes to the DAWB framework, warning they could create “legal uncertainty”, destabilise the market, and shift liabilities onto forwarders for risks they do not control.
And the tone is unusually aggressive – even by the low standards of the IATA-FIATA relationship.
FIATA claims the proposals were rushed through with inadequate consultation, insufficient legal and insurance review, and an unrealistic implementation timeline. It says forwarders, insurers, and shippers are all worried the changes could fundamentally alter liability structures across the air cargo supply chain.
As a senior air cargo player told The Loadstar: “It was an ambush and ram-through in typical IATA fashion. FIATA is right. Who the hell is IATA to dictate such things? Surely the airlines can’t all work together in an abusive market dominant position, corralled by IATA? The EU’s DG Competition, US Justice, ICAO, and court no doubt beckon.”
It’s a familiar accusation: the airline body is again trying to impose industry-wide rules through structures they control – a grievance that has haunted relations between the two organisations for more than a decade.
For much of modern air cargo history, freight forwarders operated formally as agents of airlines. IATA built the systems, controlled the rules, and effectively governed the commercial architecture of the industry through agency agreements, settlement platforms, and accreditation structures.
But over the past 20 years, forwarders have evolved into global logistics companies in their own right, with direct shipper relationships, customs capabilities, compliance responsibilities, and increasingly sophisticated digital platforms.
Many no longer see themselves as airline intermediaries. But the industry’s governance structures never fully evolved with them.
Repeated attempts to modernise the relationship have either collapsed or descended into acrimony.
The most ambitious effort came in the early 2010s with the Cargo Agency Modernisation Programme (CAMP), a joint IATA-FIATA initiative intended to reset relations entirely. The idea was revolutionary by industry standards: forwarders would stop being mere “agents” and become principals, while governance would be shared equally between airlines and forwarders.
At the time, insiders described the old relationship bluntly, one forwarder noting a “master-slave relationship”. Another said airlines had historically been able to “dictate the terms” of agency agreements through IATA structures.
And for a brief period, it looked as if peace had broken out. But the détente did not last.
The project eventually collapsed amid arguments over governance of IATA’s Cargo Accounts Settlement System (CASS), the industry payment mechanism that sits at the heart of airline-forwarder financial relationships.
Forwarders argued they were being asked to comply with rules they had little role in shaping. IATA insisted standardised structures were essential for efficiency and risk management.
By 2021, the programme had quietly died. Since then, tensions have repeatedly resurfaced.
In 2024, forwarders revolted against new IATA financial security requirements for CASS associates, describing them as punitive, opaque, and potentially damaging for SMEs. Even TIACA entered the debate, warning that the “neutrality” of the system was coming into question.
Now the battle has shifted from financial guarantees to legal liability, and the stakes are arguably much higher.
Airlines face mounting regulatory exposure and are under pressure to tighten accountability across the chain. Forwarders, meanwhile, fear becoming the industry’s liability buffer, carrying legal and financial exposure for processes they do not fully control.
Today’s language from FIATA reflects how serious the dispute has become. Insurers are openly warning about uncertainty around liability allocation and insurability of risks. Shippers are raising concerns over claims handling and contractual structures. FIATA itself has invoked formal review mechanisms in an attempt to delay implementation, which had been scheduled for 1 July.
All of which suggests this is no longer just another technical argument over air waybills.
It is the latest eruption in a much older struggle over power inside the air cargo industry — one the sector still seems unable to resolve.
Timeline: the IATA-FIATA wars
2012-2014: CAMP promises a “new era”
IATA and FIATA launch the Cargo Agency Modernisation Programme (CAMP), designed to replace the traditional airline-agent relationship with a principal-to-principal model and shared governance.
2015: negotiations stall over CASS
FIATA objects to mandatory participation in IATA’s Cargo Accounts Settlement System and complains it has no meaningful influence over CASS governance or rules.
2017-2020: reform efforts lose momentum
Pilot schemes fail to produce a lasting global framework as disagreements over governance and financial control continue.
2021: IFACP quietly abandoned
IATA confirms formal efforts to create a joint cargo programme have ceased, replacing it with consultation mechanisms that still leave ultimate authority with airlines.
2024: revolt over financial guarantees
Forwarders attack new CASS financial security requirements as excessive and unfair. TIACA publicly questions whether the system still operates as a neutral platform.
2026: the DAWB liability fight
FIATA formally challenges IATA’s proposed changes to the Direct Air Waybill framework, warning they could destabilise liability structures across the air cargo supply chain.
Comment on this article