DIGITAL
PROGRESS
be covered by other means,
for example other documents
or EDI messages; however,
when there are stakeholders
in the same location that
have different interpretations
or requirements, it can result
in the forwarder having to
manage the fragmented
requirements,” Hurst explains.
“Looking specifi cally at the
issue of fragmentation, larger
forwarders will usually have
had broader and more global
exposure to this and, as a
result, developed the technical
capabilities required to manage
it. Larger organisations tend to
also benefi t from economies
of scale when it comes to the
effort required to develop,
operate and maintain e-AWB
capabilities. For smaller
stakeholders on the other hand,
the benefi t to cost ratio might
not seem to justify investing
into e-AWB.”
This is directly linked
to the main challenge
preventing substantial
improvement, he says – the
exchange of information.
“Cargo Interchange Message
Procedures (Cargo-IMP) more
or less restrict the contents of
information in the electronic
transmission to what can
potentially be printed on a
physical air waybill. However,
since the paper AWB-based
Cargo-IMP was introduced,
the industry has got much
more complex and a lot of
additional information is
needed – even outside of the
contractual relationship being
established by the waybill.
Especially the ever-growing
demand for data that needs to
be sent to customs and border
protection authorities reveal
the limitations of the Cargo-
IMP.”
To this problem, he suggests
the answer should be the
these include: shipments that contain live animals, human
remains, dangerous goods without shipper’s declaration (such as
lithium-battery shipments); shipments with active temperature
control or shipments that are under a Letter of Credit.”
Encouraging uptake
This all rather begs the question of what can be done to increase
the uptake of e-AWB. Hurst weighs in: “While the paper AWB fees
some airlines have announced will go some way to improving the
e-AWB penetration, this measure will not really resolve the issues.
The fees themselves will certainly serve as motivation for more
forwarders to switch, where feasible, to e-AWB, but at the same
time it leaves forwarders having to manage the rather fragmented
landscape (such as cargo type and carrier product, which can differ
by carrier and location), without leaving much motivation to
further standardise the related processes across the industry.”
Since the e-AWB is just a small part of e-freight, and given the
complexities already encountered, it can be expected that these
will multiply with the push for the other elements, he adds.
“Considering multi-modal transportation will add to this as well,
but this is a topic in itself. I believe the goals cannot be reasonably
achieved, based on current standards and technologies, which is
why I believe a more holistic approach is needed. Otherwise there
is the risk of similarly slow progress with other e-freight elements,
like the one the industry encountered with e-AWB.”
It will therefore be critical to transform from a messageinterchange
based model to data sharing, he relates. “This
needs to be done via a collaborative approach, based on an
open, single standard. By ‘collaborative’ we mean that the key
industry stakeholders – airlines, forwarders and ground handling
agents, represented by IATA – need to proactively engage with
governments and the WCO, so that they can contribute to the
standard and ensure that current and future requirements can be
met with the new solution; that is, without having to adjust the
existing EDI processes for each new regulatory obstacle. This needs
to be designed in such a way that it delivers enough benefi t for
the stakeholders that they are all motivated to use the solution
sooner rather than later and that they have an interest to actively
discontinue paper-based processes.”
The standard should be open, he asserts, so that development
is seen as less of an obstacle for smaller and medium-sized players,
and so that all stakeholders (including regulatory authorities)
are motivated to adopt the standard globally. “It also needs to be
one single standard to avoid conversion, truncation or different
interpretations,” Hurst states.
The e-freight evolution
Ultimately, the wider campaign to reduce paper in airfreight
should take precedence over the e-AWB in isolation, Hurst suggests.
“Personally, I have high hopes in the IATA ONE Record initiative, as
I believe it is an effective way of sharing data between all authorised
stakeholders and enabling e-freight for the benefi t of everyone.
However, I also see a lot of challenges and hope that we, as an
industry, can learn from our recent experiences and come up with
an holistic approach that will, ultimately, accelerate e-freight.”
For smaller
stakeholders... the
benefi t to cost ratio
might not seem to
justify investing
into e-AWB
Matthias Hurst
introduction of the Cargo
Extensible Markup Language, or
Cargo-XML. “However, this is
causing even more complexity,
as the industry now does
not only struggle with the
conversions required between
the various Cargo-IMP versions,
which the majority of the
industry is still working on, but
also between the since-2015-
discontinued Cargo-IMP and
Cargo-XML. Those conversions
often are not transparent and
there are risks involved, too,
especially through truncation.”
From the perspective of the
forwarder, another matter to
consider is that airlines might
limit the applicability of e-AWB
according to destination,
commodity or product. “This
can involve considerable effort,
for system development or
local operations, when it comes
to managing what can be sent
as e-AWB locally. As a result,
certain types of shipments
can cause issues or are even
excluded. Most commonly
36 February 2019 www.airlogisticsinternational.com
/www.airlogisticsinternational.com