After two hot years driven by e-commerce and disruption in sea freight, the air-cargo market in 2025 is slowing as supply and demand gradually normalize, belly-capacity (passenger-aircraft freight space) recovers and trade policies fluctuate. For Vietnamese companies exporting high-value goods, this is the time to re-calculate the “sea-air mix” to optimize cost, time and shipment certainty.
Airlines and analysts have lowered growth expectations after the 2023-24 “bull run”, as demand is held back by inflation, tariff changes and cautious consumer sentiment. According to the International Air Transport Association (IATA), the growth momentum for air-cargo volumes decelerated in Q1 2025; on the supply side, belly-capacity continues to widen as passenger networks recover, thereby pushing back the “tight-space” environment seen in previous years.
From a market viewpoint, Xeneta forecasts global air-cargo volume growth in 2025 at around 4-6 %, roughly matching or only marginally above capacity growth (estimated 3-5 %). This scenario means the market will be less tight, increasing the negotiating power of shippers—especially on routes where passenger travel has already recovered.
A notable variable is the “de minimis” and tax policy for low-value parcels imported into the US—previously a major driver of the e-commerce-fueled air-cargo surge. With some preferential treatment being tightened, e-commerce flows China→US have dropped sharply, forcing airlines and retailers to re-route, or even redirect part of the volume to sea freight; this in turn eases pressure on trans-Pacific air-cargo capacity.
When considering a sea-air mix, shippers should examine three axes: price, time and risk.
(1) Price threshold: if sea-freight rates spike due to a geopolitical event, the air component of the mix may be expanded temporarily.
(2) Time threshold: for seasonal fashion, new-launch electronics, pharmaceuticals with cold-chain needs, sea-air can “cut half the leg” of sea journey while still being cheaper than full air.
(3) Risk threshold: when ocean-freight schedules are uncertain, using air for last-leg protection can preserve delivery commitments.
With supply growing faster than demand, average air-freight rates and yields (revenue per tonne-kilometre) are under pressure—especially on Asia–US routes which are highly sensitive to retail cycles. Nonetheless, the market still sees “local jumps”: e.g., tension in the Red Sea / Suez Canal can cause some freight to revert to air on certain routes when ocean chains detour or vessel schedules are disrupted. This creates short-term “hot spots” in pricing on a weekly/regional basis, forcing shippers to monitor booking windows closely.
Choose a reliable transit hub: hubs such as Doha (DOH), Incheon (ICN) and Hong Kong (HKG) currently have high flight frequencies and strong connectivity with ASEAN and North America/Europe. Routing via a stable hub helps control bottlenecks, especially when the sea route faces geopolitical risk or channel restrictions. For high-tech / fast-fashion goods, you can ship by sea to an Asian hub — then by air to America/Europe in periods of market “spike”.
After the “bull run”, air cargo in 2025 is cooling but not “freezing”: demand remains modestly positive, while capacity is sometimes expanding, sometimes tightening depending on aircraft-delivery schedules and policy. Vietnamese exporters should build their own sea-air “playbook” for each product group, updated quarterly based on yield, seasonal demand windows and sea-route risk — so they decide based on data: price threshold, time threshold, risk threshold. When air is used as a strategic lever (at the right time, for the right SKU, via the right hub), the supply-chain becomes both flexible to disruption and protective of margin in the new “normal” era of global logistics.
Source: https://vlr.vn/air-cargo-2025-ha-nhiet-sau-bull-run-thuong-mai-dien-tu-24005.html
After a challenging period characterized by global market volatility, Vietnam’s paper industry is entering a new recovery cycle with optimistic signals.
As global supply chains continue to shift and the air cargo industry enters a new phase of post-pandemic restructuring, Southeast Asia is increasingly positioned as a strategic air logistics hub on the global map
From January 1, 2025, the FuelEU Maritime regulation officially takes effect, requiring ships to reduce their “well-to-wake” greenhouse gas intensity by 2% compared to the 2020 baseline, with targets rising progressively until 2050. As a result, “green” costs—including scarce alternative fuels, compliance fees, verification expenses, and carbon-related surcharges—are now clearly reflected in the invoices issued by carriers and shippers. FuelEU does not mandate the use of any specific fuel. Instead, it allows operators to choose the optimal combination of solutions—such as blended biofuels, LNG/bio-LNG, wind-assisted propulsion, or operational optimization—as long as the required emission intensity is achieved. In practice, on major European trade lanes, many carriers have already begun introducing separate “Green Compliance Surcharges” rather than incorporating all environmental costs into traditional bunker surcharges.
Recently, Glotrans successfully held the Year End Party 2025 for the Northern Region in a formal, warm, and highly connected atmosphere. The event provided an opportunity for the Board of Management and all employees to look back on the company’s journey throughout 2025, review achieved results, and align on development directions and strategic objectives for 2026.
On January 20, 2026, Glotrans Da Nang was honored to welcome a delegation from the Faculty of Business Administration – University of Economics, University of Da Nang for a visit and working session at the company.
We wish our valued customers and partners a joyful and happy holiday.
The shipment of food additives was transported in container No. FCIU3301688 (20’), under B/L MPRSMUM1806, on the voyage from Nhavasheva Port (India) to Dinh Vu Port (Hai Phong, Vietnam) on 29/04/2017.
Company T (Plaintiff – the Insured) entered into an insurance contract with Company B (Defendant – the Insurer). After the insured event occurred, the Insurer alleged that the Insured had violated its obligation to prevent and mitigate losses. The Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged that such an obligation exists but concluded that the Insured did not breach it.
Under the insurance contract, the premium was to be paid in three installments, and in all three, the insured party was late in payment. When a dispute arose, the insurer (Defendant) argued that the insurance contract had terminated before the insured event occurred due to the late premium payment and therefore refused to make an insurance payout. However, the Arbitral Tribunal held a contrary view.
