Our global freight forwarding network keeps our customers freight moving across the world.

New report reveals hidden extra costs of cargo crime

Cargo theft is costing businesses far more than the value of the stolen freight; loss of a single €5,000 parcel can potentially generate €35,000 in additional costs, as organised gangs and cybercriminals exploit vulnerabilities in Europe's supply chains. LivingPackets' Hidden Cost of High-Value Delivery report, published today, estimates that every euro of direct loss carries four to seven euros in additional costs, including replacement, reshipping, dispute handling, and customer dissatisfaction. Across 10,000 shipments of goods worth €5,000 each, a 0.1% incident rate would mean 10 losses, representing €50,000 in stolen goods, and up to €350,000 in hidden costs, the analysis, drawing on Logistics Bureau research, found. Meanwhile, TAPA EMEA recorded more than €1bn in freight theft losses across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa in the 18 months to 30 June. Only 7.8% of the 58,661 reported incidents included a recorded loss value, suggesting the documented total significantly understates the problem. "The problem is not marginal," said LivingPackets. In an interview with SNAP, TAPA's UK lead for EMEA Harry Hughes said: "We've seen organised crime groups travelling two to three hundred miles to target specific vehicles. They know the routes. They know the transport companies that are moving them, the lanes they go on." Cargo theft methods include curtain slashing, entire loaded trailers taken from depots, and cyber-enabled fraud involving phishing emails, falsified collection documents, and manipulated delivery instructions. Mr Hughes also warned: "Criminals are sometimes buying legimate carriers, trading as a legitimate carrier for two to three weeks and then disappearing with loads." LivingPackets argued that while conventional tracking could record where a parcel was scanned, it cannot necessarily establish what happened between scans, or identify where custody was compromised. However, its technology embeds sensing, authentication, and event recording into reusable shipping boxes. LivingPackets founder and executive chairman Alexander Cotte said: "If the shipment itself can tell us what happened, brands, carriers and insurers start from the same facts." The company said French telecoms operator SFR had seen loss and damage claims fall by 93% on the flows concerned, while a luxury jeweller recorded no losses on LivingPackets-managed shipments. Automotive parts shipper Cotrolia reportedly reduced its breakage rate from 30% to 1%. The report advised the need for stronger carrier verification, secure parking, tighter control of collection instructions, and better shipment visibility as criminals exploit both physical and digital weaknesses across freight networks. SNAP's head of commercial for the UK and Ireland, Nick Long, urged that secure truck parking should be integral to fleet security and journey planning, rather than treated as an optional extra.

US lifts restrictions on Mexican airlines

Mexican airlines will once again be able to add new flights to the US following the Department of Transportation's (DoT) decision to lift restrictions that had been in place since last year. The Mexican government said on Friday (16 October) that the decision means that airlines based in the country will be able to launch flights from Mexico City's Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) and Benito Juárez International Airport (MEX) to the US. The ruling follows coordinated efforts between the governments of Mexico and the US and the progress made in fulfilling their bilateral aviation commitments. According to reports, Mexico has agreed to improve airlines' access to MEX. "The decision, which takes effect immediately, is a significant step forward for air connections between the two countries," said the Mexican government. "The decision reflects both governments' willingness to open a new chapter in bilateral aviation relations, based on dialogue, respect for sovereignty, institutional cooperation, international best practices, and ongoing efforts to strengthen the safety and efficiency of air transport." In July 2025, the DoT decided to place flight restrictions on Mexico-based carriers because it felt the country was not in compliance with the 2015 US-Mexico Air Transport Agreement when it required carriers to shift cargo operations from MEX to AFIA. Mexico also froze the expansion of US passenger and cargo operations from MEX. MEX slots were also removed from American, Delta, United, plus Mexican carriers Aeromexico, Viva Aerobus and Volaris in 2022 due to capacity constraints and operational limitations. The moves were made to tackle ongoing congestion at MEX. While Mexican carriers will now be able to add flights to the US, they will still be required to file schedules for flights to and from the US and obtain approval to operate services using large aircraft.

The ETS question: did carriers redesign Asia-Europe services to avoid carbon tax?

Would a carrier really design its Asia-Europe network around shaving marginal ETS dollars, which it can recoup through surcharges anyway? In short, carriers did redesign for the ETS - though not around the ETS alone. Carriers have redesigned Asia-Europe loops to cut their exposure, and they were right to. But the money is not marginal, a surcharge does not make it someone else's problem, and carbon was never the first reason to call Britain first. Those ports suit the ships; the EU Emissions Trading System made a good choice better. A few months ago, the EU ETS Observatory published a report stating that UK volume growth was a direct result of shippers seeking to minimise the EU-ETS charges - bullocks, if you ask me. Container Trade Statistics (CTS), which counts laden boxes by origin and destination, has UK trade up 3% in 2025, against 5% for North Europe as a whole: the Netherlands grew 6%, France 5%, Poland 18%. Britain grew, but slower than its neighbours. For a carrier to reduce its exposure is not just an operational saving, it is a commercial competitive advantage: the less your "Carbon surcharge" is, the more attractive your all-in freight charge - you certainly don't want to be the most expensive in the market. How a first call is chosen A rotation is built from constraints before costs: transit time; maximum draught and air draught; the number of cranes and how far and high they reach; the volume each port generates; rail and road links inland; and berth windows that fit the schedule. Only then does the voyage costing run; fuel, port charges, charter hire and, since 2024, carbon. Together they make up the unit cost. The first call in North Europe is the most demanding, because the ship arrives from Asia at its deepest draught. Few terminals take a 24,000 teu vessel at full scantling draught without restriction: Rotterdam, Felixstowe, and London Gateway can. Antwerp or Southampton take the same ships, but with draught limits. Wilhelmshaven has the water, but calling there first adds transit time to every port after it. Put Felixstowe or London Gateway first and nothing is lost; the ship has the water, UK importers get the fastest transit, and almost no nautical deviation means the next port is served swiftly thereafter. Taking the Asia leg out of the ETS as well is a win-win, and carriers took it deliberately. The test to come Sea-Intelligence Consulting found the 2026 networks cut ETS-chargeable distance by another 11%. This is simply optimisation, and cost nothing operationally. The evolution of Gemini's AE3 shows this - Algeciras out at both ends, London Gateway first, and Southampton last - presented by Hapag-Lloyd as 'enhanced Baltic coverage' and better for UK exports. Both are true. Brussels now proposes that container ports with deepsea infrastructure, within 150 nautical miles of the EU, no longer count as a break in the voyage. Felixstowe, London Gateway, and Southampton would qualify. Carriers would pay more, but it is doubtul the rotations would change: the ships still need the water, and Rotterdam still has no spare berths. That makes the listing a useful experiment. If Britain mostly stays first, once the carbon reward has gone, the leakage thesis will be buried once and for all. A tax that barely decarbonises Step back, and the UK first-call says something less comfortable about the ETS itself. In shipping, its effectiveness has been limited, for at least two reasons. The first is above - carriers optimised their networks within the rules, as they were entitled to, and importers were spared hundreds of millions of euros a year: the Observatory puts the allowances not collected at the three UK ports alone at about €316m. But the deeper cost is not the revenue. A UK first-call does not change a ship's emissions: same ship, same miles. It removes the carbon price from the Asia leg, the longest of the voyage, and with it any ETS reason to slow down or burn a bio-blend there. The price signal, which is the point of the scheme, stops at the Channel. The second is where the money goes. Shipping now pays for all its in-scope emissions, roughly 90m tonnes, about €7bn a year at €80. Since 2023, member states have been asked to spend all ETS revenue on climate and energy, and in 2024 they reported 80%. But climate is not shipping. The commission's carbon market report found about 5% of national ETS revenue went to industrial decarbonisation, and only France and Estonia ringfence a share for shipping. The Innovation Fund holds 20m allowances for maritime projects over 2024-2030, about €1.6bn in all, against a bill of €7bn a year. In other words, the industry pays for a transition it barely gets to finance. Brussels has noticed. Its July proposal would create a reserve of up to 110m allowances from 2028 to 2040, covering 55%-90% of the price gap for sustainable fuels and zero-emission propulsion. Per tonne of green fuel, that is generous. In total it is about €0.7bn a year, a tenth of what shipping pays, and if claims exceed it, every claim is cut. FuelEU Maritime shows the alternative. Its compliance cost stays inside the industry: a ship that over-complies pools its surplus with one that falls short, and the money moves from one shipowner to another that has invested in cleaner fuel. The ETS takes the same industry's money to national treasuries and asks it to decarbonise anyway. Carriers do not design networks around the ETS. They design them around ships, water and berths, then cut the carbon bill wherever the network allows, and compete on the surcharge that results. A scheme that taxes legs rather than trades, and spends the proceeds elsewhere, invited exactly that. If Brussels wants carbon cut, rather than collected, the next revision should worry less about Felixstowe and way more about where the money goes.