Air Cargo Business

special report:carGo2013

october 2013

fl ightglobal.com/ab fl ightglobal.com/ab

“Quote, quote and quote and quote, four

lines is probably maximum length to be

interesting”



interesting”

caPacitY FoR cHangeAir cargo has traditionally been a faster growth business than the passenger sector. But this now moribund market is struggling to absorb the surge in belly space entering service, which is having serious implications for full freighters

October 2013 | Airline Business | 4140 | Airline Business | October 2013

caRgo outlooK

■REPORTPETER CONWAY LONDON

REPORTAUTHOR WHERE?

The air cargo industry is once again anxiously scanning the skies for signs of an upturn, but as so often in the past few years, the signs are tentative and inconclusive.

IATA was able to take comfort from a 1.2% rise in cargo traffi c year on year in both June and July, comparing it with just 0.9% in May and 0.1% for the fi rst half of 2013 as a whole. But given that Asia-Pacifi c carriers saw a 1.8% fall in traffi c in June and 1.4% in July, while North America saw drops of 1.2% and 1.1%, the fi gures were hardly convincing.

More optimistic, perhaps, was the news that Lufthansa Cargo was planning to increase its capacity by 5% in the fourth quarter, boost-ing freighter fl ights to Shanghai, Hong Kong, Africa, the Middle East and Mexico. However, it is still planning to phase out two Boeing MD-11 freighters early next year following delivery of the same number of Boeing 777Fs in October. The new freighters had originally been intended as an expansion of its fl eet.

Whether or not a convincing recovery does kick in, a good deal of uncertainty will remain about the shape and size of the air cargo busi-ness in the years ahead.

Since 2008, a number of cherished air cargo beliefs have taken a knock – that air cargo always grows twice as fast as world trade, that a downturn is always followed by a sharp bounce-back, and that air cargo is a faster growth business than passenger.

The latter factor is perhaps one of the most painful for cargo to deal with. Used to being

regarded as something of a poor relation within the airline industry, cargo departments nevertheless used to comfort themselves with the thought that they were at least the more dynamic of the two businesses.

However, now some in air cargo are questioning that self-image.

Stan Wraight, executive director of consult-ants Strategic Aviation Solutions International and a former chief executive of Russian cargo airline AirBridge Cargo, contrasts a passenger airline business that has revolutionised itself in the past decade and still managed to grow even in a depressed economy, with a declin-ing cargo business.

“Air cargo needs to get smarter,” he says. “It is all about how you present your product to

the market. The question is why is passenger growing while cargo is in decline? Who is going to be the EasyJet or Southwest or Ryanair of air cargo?”

EXCESSIVE COMPLEXITYWraight highlights two key failings in air cargo. One is its glacial progress in automating its processes – in particular the sluggish IATA-sponsored e-freight initiative to remove paper documents from air cargo.

“I am going to Canada tomorrow and I have just booked a fl ight and a hotel online by myself in 15 minutes,” he says. “If I wanted to book a shipment to Amsterdam it would take me all day. That is the complexity we need to get out of this business.”

His other criticism is of the prevailing view that what freighter operators charge is the proper rate for air cargo and that belly opera-tors who charge less are dumping capacity on the market. “It infuriates me when I hear this,” he says. “If a belly carrier is selling below cost, then that is his folly. If he knows his costs and is making a 5% margin, then he cannot be faulted just because he charges less than you do. What you are saying is that he has lower costs and you don’t.”

The lower costs of belly cargo has been a perennial issue for air cargo, but it is becom-ing even more intense due to the expansion of widebody passenger fl eets globally. It is not just the sheer numbers of aircraft due to be delivered, but the fact that the new generation of aircraft have much more belly capacity.

Neel Jones Shah, who until July 2012 was head of cargo for Delta Air Lines, and who is now looking for his next industry role, points to examples such as Japan Airlines replacing 747-400s with 777-300ERs, or United Airlines replacing 767s with 787s. In both cases, he says, there is a near doubling of cargo capacity.

“United is not purposefully trying to increase cargo capacity, but that is what is happening. If you are fl ying two or three times a week on a route, then the extra capacity can be the same as adding a freighter. Think about the profi t and loss on that.”

Or how much less risky fi nancially the belly capacity is when compared to freighters. Wraight does a rough calculation of the costs to a belly carrier fl ying from Shanghai to Frank-

furt, and reckons 40-60 cents per kilo of cargo for extra fuel, 30 cents for handling and 30 cents for other overheads. On that basis a rate of $2.50 is producing a 50% profi t. “With a 100 tonne freighter on the same route, $2.50 a kilo would be $250,000: could you pay all the costs of a freighter with that? The answer is no.”

Shah agrees: “If you are a combination [belly] carrier, you are sitting pretty. Maybe you won’t get the same upside in a boom, but you are protected from a very large down-side.” Based on his experience at Delta, when he rapidly disposed of the 14-strong 747 freighter fl eet that had been inherited from the merger with Northwest Airlines, Shah also thinks the transition can be effected with very little loss of business. “We kept fi ve freighters for a while to meet customer commitments and to get them to transition over to belly capacity, but in the end, we managed to replace all the freighter revenue and profi ta-bility tripled. If you are a combination carrier you look at that and think: ‘Wow. Do I really need to be in freighters?’”

It is not just the sheer amount of belly capacity that is changing the economics of

freighters, but where it is being deployed. One argument for all-cargo operations has always been that in developing countries ,cargo fl ows outstrip passenger demand. However, as car-riers in these countries expand their fl eets, that argument is weakened.

Wraight gives examples. “Four or fi ve years ago, Vietnam was a hotspot for freighters, with rates of $4-5 a kilo. Then Vietnam Airlines bought 777s and Emirates started fl ying there and now, it is not so attractive. Or take Chengdu: now British Airways, KLM, Emir-ates are fl ying there with passenger aircraft, so even that niche market is going away.”

Not everyone is so downbeat about the future of freighters, however. Oliver Evans, chairman of the International Air Cargo Asso-ciation has presided over an extremely suc-cessful belly cargo business at Swiss Interna-tional Air Lines, and he concedes that the freighter’s share of cargo will probably decline or at best stagnate over the next few years.

A CRUCIAL ROLEHowever, he points out that the share is still close to 50% and sees plenty of markets and niches in which to deploy freighters. Includ-ing on routes where A380s (with their much reduced belly cargo capacity) have been deployed; in response to peak seasons, on main trade routes with reasonably balanced demand in both directions, and for humani-tarian fl ights.

Freighters also play a crucial role in feeding cargo into routes with large amounts of belly

“Three line quote in here with no picture needed blah blah blah xxxx”

NAME NAMEJob title, Company name

No more than three lines in here xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

x%


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

x%

COLOMBIAN CARRIERS XXXXXXXXXX

Carrier Market share Load factorJun-09 Jun-08 Jun-09

Avianca* 55.7% 61.0% 76.7%Aero Republica 17.3% 16.0% 67.6%Aires 14.8% 10.6% 57.7%Satena 8.1% 9.7% 64.0%EasyFly 2.4% 1.5% 61.5%Anitoquia 1.7% 1.3% 67.5%Total/Average 100% 100.1% 69.9%*Avianca fi gures include SAM subsidiary. NOTES: Market share is based on domestic passengers carried in June 2009 and June 2008. SOURCE: Colombian CAA monthly supply and demand data

FIRSTNAME SURNAME LOCATION

tWo DecK HeaDline HeRe Please

Text here please or bold up text to break up orBox text indent

CROSS HEAD

Pict

ure

- cre

dit s

tyle

Picture - caption. Style for caption

Michael Bell, who previously spent six years with McKinsey, co-leads the global aviation practice of executive search specialist Spencer Stuart Email: [email protected]

■

Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx, read our analysis with xxxxxxxxx chief executive Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx fl ightglobal.com/??????????

GLOBAL FREIGHTER FLEET EVOLUTION – LAST 10 YEARS

SOURCE: Flightglobal's Ascend Online database

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2013*201220112010200920082007200620052004

Xxxxx xxxxxxXxxxxxx xxxxXxxxxxx xxxxXxxxx xxxxxxXxxxxxx xxxxXxxxxxx xxxxXxxxx xxxxxxXxxxxxx xxxx

*Mid-year

Small freighters Intermediate freighters Large freighters

“If a belly carrier is selling below cost,

then that is his folly”STAN WRAIGHT

Executive director, Strategic Aviation Solutions International

Rex

Feat

ures

fl ightglobal.com/ab fl ightglobal.com/ab



interesting”



interesting”

caPacitY FoR cHangeAir cargo has traditionally been a faster growth business than the passenger sector. But this now moribund market is struggling to absorb the surge in belly space entering service, which is having serious implications for full freighters

October 2013 | Airline Business | 4140 | Airline Business | October 2013

caRgo outlooK

■REPORTPETER CONWAY LONDON

REPORTAUTHOR WHERE?

The air cargo industry is once again anxiously scanning the skies for signs of an upturn, but as so often in the past few years, the signs are tentative and inconclusive.

IATA was able to take comfort from a 1.2% rise in cargo traffi c year on year in both June and July, comparing it with just 0.9% in May and 0.1% for the fi rst half of 2013 as a whole. But given that Asia-Pacifi c carriers saw a 1.8% fall in traffi c in June and 1.4% in July, while North America saw drops of 1.2% and 1.1%, the fi gures were hardly convincing.

More optimistic, perhaps, was the news that Lufthansa Cargo was planning to increase its capacity by 5% in the fourth quarter, boost-ing freighter fl ights to Shanghai, Hong Kong, Africa, the Middle East and Mexico. However, it is still planning to phase out two Boeing MD-11 freighters early next year following delivery of the same number of Boeing 777Fs in October. The new freighters had originally been intended as an expansion of its fl eet.

Whether or not a convincing recovery does kick in, a good deal of uncertainty will remain about the shape and size of the air cargo busi-ness in the years ahead.

Since 2008, a number of cherished air cargo beliefs have taken a knock – that air cargo always grows twice as fast as world trade, that a downturn is always followed by a sharp bounce-back, and that air cargo is a faster growth business than passenger.

The latter factor is perhaps one of the most painful for cargo to deal with. Used to being

regarded as something of a poor relation within the airline industry, cargo departments nevertheless used to comfort themselves with the thought that they were at least the more dynamic of the two businesses.

However, now some in air cargo are questioning that self-image.

Stan Wraight, executive director of consult-ants Strategic Aviation Solutions International and a former chief executive of Russian cargo airline AirBridge Cargo, contrasts a passenger airline business that has revolutionised itself in the past decade and still managed to grow even in a depressed economy, with a declin-ing cargo business.

“Air cargo needs to get smarter,” he says. “It is all about how you present your product to

the market. The question is why is passenger growing while cargo is in decline? Who is going to be the EasyJet or Southwest or Ryanair of air cargo?”

EXCESSIVE COMPLEXITYWraight highlights two key failings in air cargo. One is its glacial progress in automating its processes – in particular the sluggish IATA-sponsored e-freight initiative to remove paper documents from air cargo.

“I am going to Canada tomorrow and I have just booked a fl ight and a hotel online by myself in 15 minutes,” he says. “If I wanted to book a shipment to Amsterdam it would take me all day. That is the complexity we need to get out of this business.”

His other criticism is of the prevailing view that what freighter operators charge is the proper rate for air cargo and that belly opera-tors who charge less are dumping capacity on the market. “It infuriates me when I hear this,” he says. “If a belly carrier is selling below cost, then that is his folly. If he knows his costs and is making a 5% margin, then he cannot be faulted just because he charges less than you do. What you are saying is that he has lower costs and you don’t.”

The lower costs of belly cargo has been a perennial issue for air cargo, but it is becom-ing even more intense due to the expansion of widebody passenger fl eets globally. It is not just the sheer numbers of aircraft due to be delivered, but the fact that the new generation of aircraft have much more belly capacity.

Neel Jones Shah, who until July 2012 was head of cargo for Delta Air Lines, and who is now looking for his next industry role, points to examples such as Japan Airlines replacing 747-400s with 777-300ERs, or United Airlines replacing 767s with 787s. In both cases, he says, there is a near doubling of cargo capacity.

“United is not purposefully trying to increase cargo capacity, but that is what is happening. If you are fl ying two or three times a week on a route, then the extra capacity can be the same as adding a freighter. Think about the profi t and loss on that.”

Or how much less risky fi nancially the belly capacity is when compared to freighters. Wraight does a rough calculation of the costs to a belly carrier fl ying from Shanghai to Frank-

furt, and reckons 40-60 cents per kilo of cargo for extra fuel, 30 cents for handling and 30 cents for other overheads. On that basis a rate of $2.50 is producing a 50% profi t. “With a 100 tonne freighter on the same route, $2.50 a kilo would be $250,000: could you pay all the costs of a freighter with that? The answer is no.”

Shah agrees: “If you are a combination [belly] carrier, you are sitting pretty. Maybe you won’t get the same upside in a boom, but you are protected from a very large down-side.” Based on his experience at Delta, when he rapidly disposed of the 14-strong 747 freighter fl eet that had been inherited from the merger with Northwest Airlines, Shah also thinks the transition can be effected with very little loss of business. “We kept fi ve freighters for a while to meet customer commitments and to get them to transition over to belly capacity, but in the end, we managed to replace all the freighter revenue and profi ta-bility tripled. If you are a combination carrier you look at that and think: ‘Wow. Do I really need to be in freighters?’”

It is not just the sheer amount of belly capacity that is changing the economics of

freighters, but where it is being deployed. One argument for all-cargo operations has always been that in developing countries ,cargo fl ows outstrip passenger demand. However, as car-riers in these countries expand their fl eets, that argument is weakened.

Wraight gives examples. “Four or fi ve years ago, Vietnam was a hotspot for freighters, with rates of $4-5 a kilo. Then Vietnam Airlines bought 777s and Emirates started fl ying there and now, it is not so attractive. Or take Chengdu: now British Airways, KLM, Emir-ates are fl ying there with passenger aircraft, so even that niche market is going away.”

Not everyone is so downbeat about the future of freighters, however. Oliver Evans, chairman of the International Air Cargo Asso-ciation has presided over an extremely suc-cessful belly cargo business at Swiss Interna-tional Air Lines, and he concedes that the freighter’s share of cargo will probably decline or at best stagnate over the next few years.

A CRUCIAL ROLEHowever, he points out that the share is still close to 50% and sees plenty of markets and niches in which to deploy freighters. Includ-ing on routes where A380s (with their much reduced belly cargo capacity) have been deployed; in response to peak seasons, on main trade routes with reasonably balanced demand in both directions, and for humani-tarian fl ights.

Freighters also play a crucial role in feeding cargo into routes with large amounts of belly

“Three line quote in here with no picture needed blah blah blah xxxx”

NAME NAMEJob title, Company name


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

x%


xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

x%

COLOMBIAN CARRIERS XXXXXXXXXX

Carrier Market share Load factorJun-09 Jun-08 Jun-09

Avianca* 55.7% 61.0% 76.7%Aero Republica 17.3% 16.0% 67.6%Aires 14.8% 10.6% 57.7%Satena 8.1% 9.7% 64.0%EasyFly 2.4% 1.5% 61.5%Anitoquia 1.7% 1.3% 67.5%Total/Average 100% 100.1% 69.9%*Avianca fi gures include SAM subsidiary. NOTES: Market share is based on domestic passengers carried in June 2009 and June 2008. SOURCE: Colombian CAA monthly supply and demand data

FIRSTNAME SURNAME LOCATION

tWo DecK HeaDline HeRe Please

Text here please or bold up text to break up orBox text indent

CROSS HEAD

Pict

ure

- cre

dit s

tyle

Picture - caption. Style for caption

Michael Bell, who previously spent six years with McKinsey, co-leads the global aviation practice of executive search specialist Spencer Stuart Email: [email protected]

■

Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxxxxxx, read our analysis with xxxxxxxxx chief executive Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxx fl ightglobal.com/??????????

GLOBAL FREIGHTER FLEET EVOLUTION – LAST 10 YEARS

SOURCE: Flightglobal's Ascend Online database

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2013*201220112010200920082007200620052004


*Mid-year

Small freighters Intermediate freighters Large freighters

“If a belly carrier is selling below cost,

then that is his folly”STAN WRAIGHT

Executive director, Strategic Aviation Solutions International

Rex

Feat

ures

caRgo outlooK

fl ightglobal.com/ab42 | Airline Business | October 2013

capacity or vice versa. Examples include the high frequency networks that several of the Gulf carriers have into India, which generate cargo that can be forwarded by freighters on to Europe or the USA, or British Airways using 747-8 Freighters to feed cargo from India and China into its transatlantic passenger fl ights.

Karl Ulrich Garnadt, chairman of Lufthansa Cargo, believes this is the only sustainable model for non-express freighter operators. “You need a regular, reliable passenger net-work, and then to use freighters wherever belly capacity is not suffi cient or to places with no passenger network,” he says, adding that he does not expect the current 50/50 bal-ance between belly and freighters at Lufthansa Cargo to change.

Rather, he thinks the signifi cant trend in freighter operations is that higher fuel prices are forcing freighter operators to invest in new freighters or exit the business. “Older aircraft are no longer feasible and for cargo that is

certainly a big change,” he says. “In the 1990s, fuel burn did not play such a decisive role and noise emissions were not an issue. But now they are both important, so converting retired passenger aircraft into freighters does not make sense.”

Perhaps not surprising, given that it has taken delivery of eight 747-8 Freighters, Euro-pean cargo airline Cargolux also sees a strong future for freighters. “When the upturn comes, everyone will be scrambling for capacity again,” says Richard Forson, its interim chief executive. He also says the nose cargo door of the 747-8F – something only it and factory-built 747 freighters have – is a huge advantage in industries such as oil and gas – and he praises the 747-8F’s cubic capacity too. “There is a continuing trend for cargo to get less dense, and you can’t optimise a 777 Freighter with less dense cargo.”

Forson does concede that the era of easy pickings for freighter operators has ended: “The days when you could fl y them to Asia purely based on the revenue on the return leg

are over.” However, he sees plenty of other opportunities for a nimble, entrepreneurial cargo operator. Also, it has to be said that in the parts of the air cargo business that are still growing despite the downturn, the passion for freighters seems unabated. Silk Way of Azerbaijan signed an MoU in March with Boeing for four 747-8Fs and has since made two of those orders fi rm. Air China Cargo is disposing of eight converted 747-400Fs but will replace them with a similar number of new 777Fs, and China Southern is also taking two 777Fs this year and four next.

PUZZLING INCREASESIn the Middle East, Qatar Airways took its fi fth 777F in June and has also replaced three A300-600Fs with larger A330-200Fs. Etihad has added a leased 747-8F to a fl eet that now includes three 777Fs, two 747-400Fs and three A330-200Fs. It saw cargo tonnage rise 23% in the fi rst half, after 19% growth in 2012. Gulf bellwether Emirates has doubled its cargo tonnage since 2007.

Working out the reason for the continued growth of Middle Eastern carriers, in particu-lar, is a puzzle. Throughout the downturn, they have managed double digit rises in cargo traffi c and in the fi rst half saw an increase of 11.2% according to IATA. The usual explana-tion is a geographical location close to many of the emerging growth markets, and excellent airport infrastructure – Qatar Airways touts its new cargo centre, for example.

Saudia Cargo, which saw a 4% rise in ton-nage during the fi rst half, and has also rapidly expanded its freighter fl eet in recent years, cites an increased focus on sales in Europe and a more fl exible approach to where it fl ies its freighters on the continent, plus the growth

in trade from China to Africa. The carrier says a recent increase in freighter frequencies to Hong Kong was almost entirely on the back of growing traffi c from China to West Africa.

Turkish Airlines also continues to grow its freighter fl eet, adding two A330-200Fs to its existing fi ve in recent months, but Sukru Nenem, its vice-president cargo commercial, stresses that it is still mainly a belly operator, carrying 70% of its cargo by this method, and citing the “high profi tability” of cargo carried on passenger aircraft. However, he says with only 18% of its passenger fl eet consisting of widebodies, Turkish has many routes with good cargo potential that cannot be satisfi ed by belly cargo. Examples where freighter serv-ices have recently started include Tehran, Entebbe, Kigali, Kuwait and Karachi.

Despite such examples, there does seem to be a trend for many carriers to become increas-ingly focused on belly capacity, and one ques-tion is how this will affect the standing of cargo within airlines. Shah says that many air-line chief executives do not really understand the role of belly cargo in making routes profi t-able, and says a culture change is needed to give cargo a seat at the table.

Evans thinks that is happening as cargo-friendly passenger widebodies are rolled out.

Meanwhile, any executive who can come up with new ways to fi ll belly space looks set to have a promising career. “We need to adopt new sales techniques to generate more vol-umes by air,” says Wraight. “The big question should be: How are we going to justify all this new capacity we have brought in?” ■

■

■

Read how cargo conversions are down sharply in the fi rst half of 2013: fl ightglobal.com/freighterconversion

SOURCE: IATA

Year-on-year change

GLOBAL FREIGHT TRAFFIC – LAST 5 YEARS

-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%


Capacity Traf�c

May

2013

Mar

2013

Jan

2013

Nov

2012

Sep

t 2012

Jul 2

012

May

2012

Mar

2012

Jan

2012

Nov

2011

Sep

t 2011

Jul 2

011

May

2011

Mar

2011

Jan

2011

Nov

2010

Sep

t 2010

Jul 2

010

May

2010

Mar

2010

Jan

2010

Nov

2009

Sep

t 2009

Jul 2

009

May

2009

Mar

2009

Jan

2009

Nov

2008

Sep

t 2008

Jul 2

008

H1 rise in Middle Eastern carriers’ cargo traffi c, according to IATA data

11.2%

THe air cargo industry is once again anxiously scanning the skies for signs of an upturn, but as so often in the past few years, the signs are tentative and inconclusive.

Iata was able to take comfort from a 1.2% rise in cargo traffi c year on year in both June and July, comparing it with just 0.9% in May and 0.1 percent for the fi rst half of 2013 as a whole. But given that Asia-Pacifi c carriers saw a 1.8% fall in traffi c in June and 1.4% in July, while North American saw drops of 1.2% and 1.1%, the fi gures were hardly convincing.

More optimistic, perhaps, was the news that Lufthansa Cargo was planning to increase its capacity by 5% in the fourth quarter, boosting freighter fl ights to Shanghai, Hong Kong, Africa, the Middle East and Mexico. However, it is still planning to phase out two Boeing MD-11 freighters early next year following delivery of the same number of Boeing 777Fs in October. The new freighters had originally been intended as an expansion of its fl eet.

Whether or not a convincing recovery does kick in, a good deal of uncertainty will remain about the shape and size of the air cargo busi-ness in the years ahead. Since 2008, a number of cherished air cargo beliefs have taken a knock – that air cargo always grows twice as fast as world trade, that a downturn is always followed by a sharp bounce-back, and that air cargo is a faster growth business than passenger.

The latter factor is perhaps one of the most painful for cargo to deal with. Used to being regarded as something of a poor relation within the airline industry, cargo departments nevertheless used to comfort themselves with the thought that they were at least the more dynamic of the two businesses.

However, now some in air cargo are questioning that self-image. Stan Wraight, executive director of consultants Strategic Aviation Solutions International and a former chief executive of Russian cargo

caRgo RanKings

fl ightglobal.com/ab44 | Airline Business | October 2013 October 2013 | Airline Business | 45fl ightglobal.com/ab

ANALYSIS BY FLIGHTGLOBAL INSIGHT DATA COMPILED BY SILVA ISHAK OF FLIGHTGLOBAL DATA RESEARCH

The Airline Business annual freight operator survey, featuring traffi c and revenue data for the industry’s leading players, shows a mixed picture as the sector continued to struggle to regain momentum in 2012

TOP 100 CARGO AIRLINE RANKING BY TRAFFIC: 2012 (1-50)

Ranking Carrier Country Cargo traffi c Cargo revenue Nominal yield Share of group by Notes2012 (2011) RTK (m) Change (%) $m Change (%) c/RTK RTK (%) Revenue (%)

1 (1) FedEx Express USA 16,262 0.6 27,171 2.5 167.1 100 1002 (2) UPS Airlines USA 10,761 -1.4 5,257 -9.3 48.9 100 983 (6) Emirates Airline UAE 9,318 14.6 2,817 8.4 30.2 34 144 (3) Lufthansa Cargo Germany 8,727 -8.0 3,468 -15.7 39.7 100 1005 (4) Cathay Pacifi c* Hong Kong 8,615 -8.5 3,166 -5.2 36.7 49 25 Source: ICAO6 (5) Korean Air South Korea 8,279 -9.3 2,764 -12.6 33.4 58 257 (7) Singapore Airlines Cargo Singapore 6,764 -6.0 1,821 -9.4 26.9 100 1008 (13) Atlas Air USA 5,110 9.2 1,621 17.9 31.7 97 989 (12) British Airways UK 4,891 2.0 1,173 -1.4 24.0 28 710 (8) China Airlines Taiwan 4,828 -14.9 1,384 -12.2 28.7 3111 (9) Cargolux Luxembourg 4,800 -4.7 1,726 -7.6 36.0 100 9912 (14) China Eastern Airlines China 4,701 6.3 1,274 1.7 27.1 33 913 (15) Air China China 4,554 3.1 1,337 -12.3 29.4 35 814 (16) Qatar Airways Qatar 4,491 15.9 1,078 8.1 24.0 40 1415 (10) EVA Air Taiwan 4,472 -8.4 1,165 -6.2 26.1 3216 (11) Air France France 4,443 -8.2 3,944 -10.2 88.8 26 12 Source: ICAO17 (19) Asiana Airlines South Korea 4,209 10.3 1,294 -0.2 30.7 56 2618 (22) China Southern Airlines China 3,862 16.9 1,041 16.6 27.0 28 7 Source: ICAO19 (18) KLM Netherlands 3,651 -4.7 2,147 -9.4 58.8 1820 (20) LAN Airlines Chile 3,600 -0.3 Airline Business estimate21 (17) United Airlines USA 3,590 -7.1 1222 (21) Delta Air Lines USA 3,482 -0.3 990 -3.6 28.4 323 (23) China Cargo Airlines China 3,302 14.5 100 Source: ICAO24 (25) All Nippon Airways Japan 2,975 10.1 1,517 -6.6 51.0 1025 (29) Etihad Airways UAE 2,690 16.9 733 10.4 27.2 1526 (24) Thai Airways Thailand 2,653 -4.1 864 -6.0 32.6 32 1327 (26) American Airlines USA 2,585 -1.2 669 -4.8 25.9 12 328 (30) Nippon Cargo Airlines Japan 2,423 8.9 934 -10.9 38.5 100 10029 (27) AirBridge Cargo Russia 2,379 0.2 10030 (28) Qantas Australia 2,206 -4.1 814 -3.0 36.9 531 (32) Southern Air USA 2,101 4.2 10032 (31) Malaysia Airlines Malaysia 1,884 -8.9 534 -10.9 28.3 36 1233 (40) Turkish Airlines Turkey 1,877 27.6 673 17.5 35.9 20 834 (36) Saudia Saudi Arabia 1,856 21.4 3235 (34) Kalitta Air USA 1,798 1.4 930 -8.9 51.7 100 8136 (39) Japan Airlines Japan 1,699 14.5 907 -9.2 53.4 28 637 (33) Polar Air Cargo USA 1,676 -5.9 370 19.4 22.1 100 4038 (38) Air Canada Canada 1,579 4.6 488 30.9 17 439 (37) Virgin Atlantic Airways UK 1,461 -4.4 365 -4.9 25.0 32 840 (42) Swiss Switzerland 1,452 8.9 581 -1.2 40.0 30 1141 (44) TNT Airways Belgium 1,222 8.8 850 6.2 69.6 100 100 Source: ICAO42 (41) Iberia Spain 1,187 -12.9 400 -15.3 33.7 22 643 (45) South African Airways South Africa 1,180 11.3 3744 (47) Aerofl ot Russia 1,121 23.4 364 30.9 32.5 20 445 (46) Global Supply Systems UK 1,060 14.0 10046 (49) Air New Zealand New Zealand 975 9.2 241 13.7 24.7 747 (35) World Airways USA 945 -41.6 225 -21.3 23.8 89 5448 (48) Finnair Finland 918 2.3 309 -8.8 33.7 30 1049 (52) Ethiopian Airlines Ethiopia 889 15.6 265 39.5 29.8 30 1350 (51) Jet Airways INDIA 849 1.3 252 -7.4 29.7 26 8

Full rankings are available to subscribers to our premium service at: fl ightglobal.com/ProinfoContact Daniel Sedman for more details.Tel +44 (0)208 652 3914 E-mail daniel.sedman@fl ightglobal.com


Ranking Airline Country Cargo traffi c Cargo revenue2012 (2011) RTK (m) Change (%) $m Change (%)

51 (53) ABX Air USA 822 10.1 276 9.5

52 (50) TAM Linhas Aereas Brazil 795 -9.1 390 -40.1

53 (43) Evergreen Int'l Airlines USA 772 -37.3 278 -55.7

54 Avianca** Colombia 695

55 (56) DHL Air UK 588 2.2

56 (57) Hainan Airlines China 578 1.0

57 (62) Air Hong Kong Hong Kong 573 10.7

58 (60) SAS Cargo Denmark 567 5.6

59 (54) Yangtze River Express China 555 -15.9

60 (58) US Airways USA 501 -9.6 155 -8.8

61 (63) Vietnam Airlines Vietnam 500 9.3

62 (65) Garuda Indonesia Indonesia 495 12.2 193 14.2

63 (59) El Al Israel 485 -11.2 80 -19.2

64 (55) Air India India 465 -21.2

65 (61) Sky Lease Cargo USA 447 -13.7 60

66 (66) Alitalia Italy 442 0.2

67 (67) Shenzhen Airlines China 433 6.6

68 (64) Centurion Air Cargo USA 429 -3.5 483 -2.0

69 (80) Transaero Airlines Russia 382 29.9 107 40.8

70 (72) SriLankan Airlines Sri Lanka 378 9.6 102 7.4

71 (73) Egyptair Egypt 357 6.1

72 (74) Cargolux Italia Italy 360 10.6 125 7.8

73 (68) Volga-Dnepr Airlines† Russia 346 -10.1 1,639 -4.8

74 (70) TAP Portugal Portugal 335 -9.0 164 -9.9

75 (78) Philippine Airlines Philippines 326 8.4 129 2.4

76 (75) Cargo Air Lines Est Israel 325 0.2

77 (76) Florida West Int'l Airways USA 324 2.1 48 4.3

78 (69) Austrian Austria 322 -16.0

79 (71) Air Transport International USA 283 -21.6 58 -71.1

80 (83) Sichuan Airlines China 280 5.2

81 (81) Pakistan Int’l Airlines Pakistan 273 -5.2 72 -8.9

81 (82) Kuwait Airways Kuwait 273 1.5

83 (79) Kenya Airways Kenya 267 -10.2 114 15.2

84 (84) Xiamen Airlines China 255 9.2

85 (91) Oman Air Oman 241 40.2 55 10.0

86 (86) Aeromexico Mexico 233 4.0 162 107.7

87 (77) Gulf Air Bahrain 226 -26.2

88 (85) Dragonair Hong Kong 223 -4.4

89 MasAir Mexico 200

90 (87) Royal Jordanian Jordan 196 -3.9 61

91 (89) Coyne Airways UK 195 7.7 54 -14.3

92 (94) Hawaiian Airlines USA 187 33.1 48 26.3

93 (88) Air Mauritius Mauritius 182 -3.8 35 -14.6

94 (92) Southwest Airlines USA 181 9.7 160 15.1

95 (95) Shandong Airlines China 156 12.6

96 (98) Brussels Airlines Belgium 150 24.8 79

97 (93) China Postal Airlines China 147 -3.9

98 (90) Shanghai Airlines China 136 -22.7

99= (96) Amerijet International USA 132 0.2 181 3.4

99= (97) Aer Lingus Ireland 132 2.3 59 -1.7

NOTES AND DEFINITIONS: Est Estimates based on historical, fl eet and industry data are made for indicative purposes. *Cathay Pacifi c data includes Dragonair **Avianca includes TACA †Volga-Dnepr Airlines revenue is for group and includes AirBridge Cargo. Rankings based on fi gures for individual air cargo operations. Contract charter carriers such as Atlas Air and Gemini are excluded. Cargo traffi c: Includes freight and mail, scheduled and charter measured in RTK=revenue tonne km, 1 mile=1.609km, 1 US ton=0.9 metric tonne, 1 imperial ton=1.016 metric tonne. Cargo revenues: Shown in US$, but with change shown in local currency, where available. Revenue fi gures for major consolidators, including FedEx and UPS, include only their air transport operating divisions. Yields: Nominal yields are shown as a straight division of cargo revenues by RTK. These may vary from operational fi gures given by individual carriers. Major consolidators include fl ying as part of a high-value door-to-door service. SOURCES: Returns to the Airline Business/Flightglobal Pro database and regulatory fi lings.

TOP 100 CARGO AIRLINES: ALPHABETICAL LISTING

Airline Rank Airline Rank

ABX Air 51 Hainan Airlines 56Aer Lingus 99 Hawaiian Airlines 92Aerofl ot 44 Iberia 42Aeromexico 86 Japan Airlines 36Air Canada 38 Jet Airways 50Air China 13 Kalitta Air 35Air France 16 Kenya Airways 83Air Hong Kong 57 KLM 19Air India 64 Korean Air 6Air Mauritius 93 Kuwait Airways 81Air New Zealand 46 LAN Airlines 20AirBridge Cargo 29 Lufthansa Cargo 4Alitalia 66 Malaysia Airlines 32American Airlines 27 MasAir 89Amerijet International 99 Nippon Cargo Airlines 28All Nippon Airways 24 Oman Air 85Asiana Airlines 17 Pakistan Int'l Airlines 81Air Transport Int'l 79 Philippine Airlines 75Atlas Air 8 Polar Air Cargo 37Austrian 78 Qantas 30Avianca 54 Qatar Airways 14British Airways 9 Royal Jordanian 90Brussels Airlines 96 SAS Cargo 58Cargo Air Lines 76 Saudia 34Cargolux 11 Shandong Airlines 95Cargolux Italia 71 Shanghai Airlines 98Cathay Pacifi c 5 Shenzhen Airlines 67Centurion Air Cargo 68 Sichuan Airlines 80China Airlines 10 Singapore Airlines 7China Cargo Airlines 23 Sky Lease Cargo 65China Eastern Airlines 12 South African Airways 43China Postal Airlines 97 Southern Air 31China Southern Airlines 18 Southwest Airlines 94Coyne Airways 91 SriLankan Airlines 70Delta Air Lines 22 Swiss 40DHL Air 55 TAM Linhas Aereas 52Dragonair 88 TAP Portugal 74Egyptair 72 Thai Airways Int'l 26El Al 63 TNT Airways 41Emirates Airline 3 Transaero Airlines 69Ethiopian Airlines 49 Turkish Airlines 33Etihad Airways 25 United Airlines 21EVA Air 15 UPS Airlines 2Evergreen Int'l Airlines 53 US Airways 60FedEx 1 Vietnam Airlines 61Finnair 48 Virgin Atlantic Airways 39Florida West Int’l 77 Volga-Dnepr Airlines 73Garuda Indonesia 62 World Airways 47Global Supply Systems 45 Xiamen Airlines 84Gulf Air 87 Yangtze River Express 59

caRgo RanKings 2012

caRgo RanKings

fl ightglobal.com/ab44 | Airline Business | October 2013 October 2013 | Airline Business | 45fl ightglobal.com/ab

ANALYSIS BY FLIGHTGLOBAL INSIGHT DATA COMPILED BY SILVA ISHAK OF FLIGHTGLOBAL DATA RESEARCH

The Airline Business annual freight operator survey, featuring traffi c and revenue data for the industry’s leading players, shows a mixed picture as the sector continued to struggle to regain momentum in 2012


Ranking Carrier Country Cargo traffi c Cargo revenue Nominal yield Share of group by Notes2012 (2011) RTK (m) Change (%) $m Change (%) c/RTK RTK (%) Revenue (%)

1 (1) FedEx Express USA 16,262 0.6 27,171 2.5 167.1 100 1002 (2) UPS Airlines USA 10,761 -1.4 5,257 -9.3 48.9 100 983 (6) Emirates Airline UAE 9,318 14.6 2,817 8.4 30.2 34 144 (3) Lufthansa Cargo Germany 8,727 -8.0 3,468 -15.7 39.7 100 1005 (4) Cathay Pacifi c* Hong Kong 8,615 -8.5 3,166 -5.2 36.7 49 25 Source: ICAO6 (5) Korean Air South Korea 8,279 -9.3 2,764 -12.6 33.4 58 257 (7) Singapore Airlines Cargo Singapore 6,764 -6.0 1,821 -9.4 26.9 100 1008 (13) Atlas Air USA 5,110 9.2 1,621 17.9 31.7 97 989 (12) British Airways UK 4,891 2.0 1,173 -1.4 24.0 28 710 (8) China Airlines Taiwan 4,828 -14.9 1,384 -12.2 28.7 3111 (9) Cargolux Luxembourg 4,800 -4.7 1,726 -7.6 36.0 100 9912 (14) China Eastern Airlines China 4,701 6.3 1,274 1.7 27.1 33 913 (15) Air China China 4,554 3.1 1,337 -12.3 29.4 35 814 (16) Qatar Airways Qatar 4,491 15.9 1,078 8.1 24.0 40 1415 (10) EVA Air Taiwan 4,472 -8.4 1,165 -6.2 26.1 3216 (11) Air France France 4,443 -8.2 3,944 -10.2 88.8 26 12 Source: ICAO17 (19) Asiana Airlines South Korea 4,209 10.3 1,294 -0.2 30.7 56 2618 (22) China Southern Airlines China 3,862 16.9 1,041 16.6 27.0 28 7 Source: ICAO19 (18) KLM Netherlands 3,651 -4.7 2,147 -9.4 58.8 1820 (20) LAN Airlines Chile 3,600 -0.3 Airline Business estimate21 (17) United Airlines USA 3,590 -7.1 1222 (21) Delta Air Lines USA 3,482 -0.3 990 -3.6 28.4 323 (23) China Cargo Airlines China 3,302 14.5 100 Source: ICAO24 (25) All Nippon Airways Japan 2,975 10.1 1,517 -6.6 51.0 1025 (29) Etihad Airways UAE 2,690 16.9 733 10.4 27.2 1526 (24) Thai Airways Thailand 2,653 -4.1 864 -6.0 32.6 32 1327 (26) American Airlines USA 2,585 -1.2 669 -4.8 25.9 12 328 (30) Nippon Cargo Airlines Japan 2,423 8.9 934 -10.9 38.5 100 10029 (27) AirBridge Cargo Russia 2,379 0.2 10030 (28) Qantas Australia 2,206 -4.1 814 -3.0 36.9 531 (32) Southern Air USA 2,101 4.2 10032 (31) Malaysia Airlines Malaysia 1,884 -8.9 534 -10.9 28.3 36 1233 (40) Turkish Airlines Turkey 1,877 27.6 673 17.5 35.9 20 834 (36) Saudia Saudi Arabia 1,856 21.4 3235 (34) Kalitta Air USA 1,798 1.4 930 -8.9 51.7 100 8136 (39) Japan Airlines Japan 1,699 14.5 907 -9.2 53.4 28 637 (33) Polar Air Cargo USA 1,676 -5.9 370 19.4 22.1 100 4038 (38) Air Canada Canada 1,579 4.6 488 30.9 17 439 (37) Virgin Atlantic Airways UK 1,461 -4.4 365 -4.9 25.0 32 840 (42) Swiss Switzerland 1,452 8.9 581 -1.2 40.0 30 1141 (44) TNT Airways Belgium 1,222 8.8 850 6.2 69.6 100 100 Source: ICAO42 (41) Iberia Spain 1,187 -12.9 400 -15.3 33.7 22 643 (45) South African Airways South Africa 1,180 11.3 3744 (47) Aerofl ot Russia 1,121 23.4 364 30.9 32.5 20 445 (46) Global Supply Systems UK 1,060 14.0 10046 (49) Air New Zealand New Zealand 975 9.2 241 13.7 24.7 747 (35) World Airways USA 945 -41.6 225 -21.3 23.8 89 5448 (48) Finnair Finland 918 2.3 309 -8.8 33.7 30 1049 (52) Ethiopian Airlines Ethiopia 889 15.6 265 39.5 29.8 30 1350 (51) Jet Airways INDIA 849 1.3 252 -7.4 29.7 26 8

Full rankings are available to subscribers to our premium service at: fl ightglobal.com/ProinfoContact Daniel Sedman for more details.Tel +44 (0)208 652 3914 E-mail daniel.sedman@fl ightglobal.com


Ranking Airline Country Cargo traffi c Cargo revenue2012 (2011) RTK (m) Change (%) $m Change (%)

51 (53) ABX Air USA 822 10.1 276 9.5

52 (50) TAM Linhas Aereas Brazil 795 -9.1 390 -40.1

53 (43) Evergreen Int'l Airlines USA 772 -37.3 278 -55.7

54 Avianca** Colombia 695

55 (56) DHL Air UK 588 2.2

56 (57) Hainan Airlines China 578 1.0

57 (62) Air Hong Kong Hong Kong 573 10.7

58 (60) SAS Cargo Denmark 567 5.6

59 (54) Yangtze River Express China 555 -15.9

60 (58) US Airways USA 501 -9.6 155 -8.8

61 (63) Vietnam Airlines Vietnam 500 9.3

62 (65) Garuda Indonesia Indonesia 495 12.2 193 14.2

63 (59) El Al Israel 485 -11.2 80 -19.2

64 (55) Air India India 465 -21.2

65 (61) Sky Lease Cargo USA 447 -13.7 60

66 (66) Alitalia Italy 442 0.2

67 (67) Shenzhen Airlines China 433 6.6

68 (64) Centurion Air Cargo USA 429 -3.5 483 -2.0

69 (80) Transaero Airlines Russia 382 29.9 107 40.8

70 (72) SriLankan Airlines Sri Lanka 378 9.6 102 7.4

71 (73) Egyptair Egypt 357 6.1

72 (74) Cargolux Italia Italy 360 10.6 125 7.8

73 (68) Volga-Dnepr Airlines† Russia 346 -10.1 1,639 -4.8

74 (70) TAP Portugal Portugal 335 -9.0 164 -9.9

75 (78) Philippine Airlines Philippines 326 8.4 129 2.4

76 (75) Cargo Air Lines Est Israel 325 0.2

77 (76) Florida West Int'l Airways USA 324 2.1 48 4.3

78 (69) Austrian Austria 322 -16.0

79 (71) Air Transport International USA 283 -21.6 58 -71.1

80 (83) Sichuan Airlines China 280 5.2

81 (81) Pakistan Int’l Airlines Pakistan 273 -5.2 72 -8.9

81 (82) Kuwait Airways Kuwait 273 1.5

83 (79) Kenya Airways Kenya 267 -10.2 114 15.2

84 (84) Xiamen Airlines China 255 9.2

85 (91) Oman Air Oman 241 40.2 55 10.0

86 (86) Aeromexico Mexico 233 4.0 162 107.7

87 (77) Gulf Air Bahrain 226 -26.2

88 (85) Dragonair Hong Kong 223 -4.4

89 MasAir Mexico 200

90 (87) Royal Jordanian Jordan 196 -3.9 61

91 (89) Coyne Airways UK 195 7.7 54 -14.3

92 (94) Hawaiian Airlines USA 187 33.1 48 26.3

93 (88) Air Mauritius Mauritius 182 -3.8 35 -14.6

94 (92) Southwest Airlines USA 181 9.7 160 15.1

95 (95) Shandong Airlines China 156 12.6

96 (98) Brussels Airlines Belgium 150 24.8 79

97 (93) China Postal Airlines China 147 -3.9

98 (90) Shanghai Airlines China 136 -22.7

99= (96) Amerijet International USA 132 0.2 181 3.4

99= (97) Aer Lingus Ireland 132 2.3 59 -1.7

NOTES AND DEFINITIONS: Est Estimates based on historical, fl eet and industry data are made for indicative purposes. *Cathay Pacifi c data includes Dragonair **Avianca includes TACA †Volga-Dnepr Airlines revenue is for group and includes AirBridge Cargo. Rankings based on fi gures for individual air cargo operations. Contract charter carriers such as Atlas Air and Gemini are excluded. Cargo traffi c: Includes freight and mail, scheduled and charter measured in RTK=revenue tonne km, 1 mile=1.609km, 1 US ton=0.9 metric tonne, 1 imperial ton=1.016 metric tonne. Cargo revenues: Shown in US$, but with change shown in local currency, where available. Revenue fi gures for major consolidators, including FedEx and UPS, include only their air transport operating divisions. Yields: Nominal yields are shown as a straight division of cargo revenues by RTK. These may vary from operational fi gures given by individual carriers. Major consolidators include fl ying as part of a high-value door-to-door service. SOURCES: Returns to the Airline Business/Flightglobal Pro database and regulatory fi lings.

TOP 100 CARGO AIRLINES: ALPHABETICAL LISTING

Airline Rank Airline Rank

ABX Air 51 Hainan Airlines 56Aer Lingus 99 Hawaiian Airlines 92Aerofl ot 44 Iberia 42Aeromexico 86 Japan Airlines 36Air Canada 38 Jet Airways 50Air China 13 Kalitta Air 35Air France 16 Kenya Airways 83Air Hong Kong 57 KLM 19Air India 64 Korean Air 6Air Mauritius 93 Kuwait Airways 81Air New Zealand 46 LAN Airlines 20AirBridge Cargo 29 Lufthansa Cargo 4Alitalia 66 Malaysia Airlines 32American Airlines 27 MasAir 89Amerijet International 99 Nippon Cargo Airlines 28All Nippon Airways 24 Oman Air 85Asiana Airlines 17 Pakistan Int'l Airlines 81Air Transport Int'l 79 Philippine Airlines 75Atlas Air 8 Polar Air Cargo 37Austrian 78 Qantas 30Avianca 54 Qatar Airways 14British Airways 9 Royal Jordanian 90Brussels Airlines 96 SAS Cargo 58Cargo Air Lines 76 Saudia 34Cargolux 11 Shandong Airlines 95Cargolux Italia 71 Shanghai Airlines 98Cathay Pacifi c 5 Shenzhen Airlines 67Centurion Air Cargo 68 Sichuan Airlines 80China Airlines 10 Singapore Airlines 7China Cargo Airlines 23 Sky Lease Cargo 65China Eastern Airlines 12 South African Airways 43China Postal Airlines 97 Southern Air 31China Southern Airlines 18 Southwest Airlines 94Coyne Airways 91 SriLankan Airlines 70Delta Air Lines 22 Swiss 40DHL Air 55 TAM Linhas Aereas 52Dragonair 88 TAP Portugal 74Egyptair 72 Thai Airways Int'l 26El Al 63 TNT Airways 41Emirates Airline 3 Transaero Airlines 69Ethiopian Airlines 49 Turkish Airlines 33Etihad Airways 25 United Airlines 21EVA Air 15 UPS Airlines 2Evergreen Int'l Airlines 53 US Airways 60FedEx 1 Vietnam Airlines 61Finnair 48 Virgin Atlantic Airways 39Florida West Int’l 77 Volga-Dnepr Airlines 73Garuda Indonesia 62 World Airways 47Global Supply Systems 45 Xiamen Airlines 84Gulf Air 87 Yangtze River Express 59

caRgo RanKings 2012

caRgo RanKings

October 2013 | Airline Business | 47fl ightglobal.com/ab

ACI TOP 50 AIRPORTS: 2012 RANKINGS BY CARGO TONNAGE

Rank City Airport Code Country Freight2012 (2011) T (1,000s) Change (%)

1 (1) Hong Kong International HKG Hong Kong 4,025 2.22 (2) Memphis International MEM USA 4,015 2.53 (3) Shanghai Pudong International PVG China 2,855 -5.04 (4) Anchorage Ted Stevens Int'l ANC USA 2,464 -3.15 (5) Seoul Incheon International ICN South Korea 2,397 -3.56 (6) Dubai International DXB UAE 2,280 4.17 (7) Louisville International SDF USA 2,168 -0.98 (8) Frankfurt International FRA Germany 1,986 -6.99 (10) Tokyo Narita International NRT Japan 1,964 3.110 (9) Paris Charles de Gaulle CDG France 1,950 -6.611 (12) Miami International MIA USA 1,898 4.612 (11) Singapore Changi SIN Singapore 1,806 -3.213 (13) Beijing Capital International PEK China 1,800 9.714 (15) Los Angeles International LAX USA 1,693 5.315 (14) Taipei Taiwan Taoyuan Int'l TPE Taiwan 1,519 -5.816 (16) Amsterdam Schiphol AMS Netherlands 1,483 -2.617 (17) London Heathrow LHR UK 1,465 -1.318 (18) Bangkok Suvarnabhumi Int'l BKK Thailand 1,344 1.819 (20) Chicago O'Hare International ORD USA 1,203 -4.320 (19) New York JFK JFK USA 1,196 -4.921 (23) Guangzhou Baiyun International CAN China 1,194 45.822 (21) Indianapolis International IND USA 987 1.823 (22) Shenzhen Baoan International SZX China 855 3.224 (24) Tokyo Haneda International HND Japan 847 4.425 (26) Leipzig Leipzig/Halle LEJ Germany 846 13.726 (25) Doha International DOH Qatar 827 3.927 (28) Cologne Konrad Adenauer CGN Germany 730 0.528 (29) Osaka Kansai International KIX Japan 702 -2.929 (31) Kuala Lumpur International KUL Malaysia 673 0.630 (27) Newark Liberty International EWR USA 672 -8.731 (32) Mumbai International BOM India 639 -4.432 (35) Bogota El Dorado International BOG Colombia 633 2.533 (38) Jakarta Soekarno Hatta Int'l CGK Indonesia 624 9.034 (33) Luxembourg Luxembourg LUX Luxembourg 615 -6.435 (34) Atlanta Hartsfi eld-International ATL USA 607 -4.836 (30) Liege Bierset LGG Belgium 577 -14.437 (36) Dallas/Ft Worth International DFW USA 575 -5.238 (41) Abu Dhabi International AUH UAE 568 17.739 (37) Delhi Indira Gandhi Int'l DEL India 549 -5.540 (39) Istanbul Ataturk International IST Turkey 544 9.141 (42) Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Int'l CVG USA 537 11.742 (43) Chengdu Shuangliu International CTU China 508 6.443 (44) Oakland International OAK USA 474 0.144 (47) Sao Paulo Guarulhos International GRU Brazil 413 -3.245 (40) Toronto Pearson International YYZ Canada 408 -15.746 (49) Houston George Bush IAH USA 407 -1.347 (45) Milan Malpensa MXP Italy 406 -7.848 (46) Shanghai Hongqiao International SHA China 405 -6.349 (48) Brussels National BRU Belgium 402 -4.050 (50) Mexico City Benito Juarez Int'l MEX Mexico 397 -3.5

TOP CARGO AIRLINES GROUPS BY REVENUE: 2012

Rank Airline Cargo revenue$m Change (%)

1 FedEx Express 27,171 2.5 2 UPS Airlines 5,257 -9.3 3 Air France-KLM 3,944 -10.2 4 Lufthansa Group 3,905 -13.9 5 Cathay Pacifi c Group 3,166 -5.2 6 Emirates Airline 2,817 8.4 7 Korean Air 2,764 -12.6 8 LATAM Airlines Group 1,940 -6.2 9 Singapore Airlines Cargo 1,821 -9.4 10 Cargolux 1,726 -7.6 11 Volga-Dnepr Airlines 1,639 -4.8 12 Atlas Air 1,621 17.9 13 IAG 1,570 -5.6 14 All Nippon Airways 1,426 -7.1 15 China Airlines 1,384 -12.2 16 Air China 1,337 -12.3 17 Asiana Airlines 1,294 -0.2 18 China Eastern Airlines 1,274 1.7 19 EVA Air 1,165 -6.2 20 Qatar Airways Group 1,078 8.1 21 China Southern 1,041 16.6 22 United-Continental 1,018 -12.8 23 Delta Air Lines 990 -3.6 24 Nippon Cargo Airlines 934 -10.9 25 Kalitta Air 930 -8.9 26 Japan Airlines 907 -9.2 27 Thai Airways International 864 -6.0 28 TNT Airways 850 6.2 29 Qantas 814 -3.0 30 Etihad Airways 733 10.4 31 Turkish Airlines 673 17.5 32 AMR Corporation 669 -4.8 33 Malaysia Airlines 534 -10.9 34 Air Canada 488 0.0 35 Centurion Air Cargo 483 -2.0 36 AviancaTaca Group 478 23.5 37 Polar Air Cargo 370 19.4 38 Virgin Group 365 -4.9 39 Aerofl ot 364 30.9 40 Finnair 309 -8.8 41 Evergreen Int'l Airlines 278 -55.7 42 ABX Air 276 9.5 43 Ethiopian Airlines 265 39.5 44 Jet Airways 252 -7.4 45 Air New Zealand 241 13.7 46 World Airways 225 -21.3 47 SAS Group 203 -11.0 48 Garuda Indonesia 193 14.2 49 Amerijet International 181 3.4 50 TAP Portugal 164 -9.9

free Special reportSFlightglobal Insight produces Free special reports covering various aerospace topics with market analysis, technical information and graphics. Find out more and download our reports at www.flightglobal.com/insight

Insight

Regionals subject

flightglobal.com/ab8 | Airline Business | February 2012

Flightglobal InsightQuadrant House, The Quadrant, Sutton, Surrey, SM2 5AS, UKTel: +44 20 8652 8724 Email: [email protected] Web: www.flightglobal.com/insight