In CTPAT’s 25 years , three generations of professionals linked to international trade and security have come together. In Mexico, each generation of professionals who complete their university studies and enter the workforce encounters a different environment than those who came before them. It’s not just a technological difference: the rules, the markets, the threats, the ways of doing business change, and with them, the paradigms we have considered correct for years.

If we go back two generations, approximately 42 years, we find that generation, we could call the “NAFTA Generation”, formed in Mexico’s transition to an open economy.

Between 1985 and 2005, Mexico transitioned from a protectionist model to one of gradual integration into the international economy . Accession to the GATT, the implementation of NAFTA, the 1994 financial crisis, the national security environment following the EZLN uprising, and, particularly, the events of September 11, 2001, all altered the landscape of international operations.

Trade liberalization increased the need for competitiveness, quality, and logistical efficiency, but it also made it clear that goods, means of transport, and companies could be used for illicit activities.

After 9/11, a new concern emerged: trade not only had to be facilitated, but it also had to be secure. CTPAT was established in 2001 , and a few years later, in 2005, the World Customs Organization adopted the SAFE Framework of Standards to secure and facilitate global trade. This marked the beginning of a new vision: security could no longer be considered solely the responsibility of authorities, but rather a shared responsibility between governments and businesses.

Thus emerged a second generation: the “Globalization and Security Generation .” Between 2005 and 2025, this generation experienced a much deeper transformation of supply chains. Globalization multiplied suppliers, routes, logistics operators, and levels of outsourcing, while threats evolved from traditional smuggling to phenomena such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, forced labor, terrorism, cargo theft, internal conspiracies, and, subsequently, cyberattacks on supply chains.

In Mexico, the period from 2006 to 2012 was also marked by the intensification of the security strategy against organized crime. Violence began to directly impact transportation, logistics, and business continuity. The global financial crisis of 2008–2009 highlighted the interdependence of economies; subsequently, the renegotiation of NAFTA and the entry into force of the USMCA forced a renewed review of supply chains. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that a global supply chain could be disrupted by a cause not necessarily related to crime. And then came nearshoring .

Mexico once again became a strategic player for North America, but now under a different condition: competitiveness no longer depended solely on cost and speed; it began to depend also on resilience, traceability, compliance, and security. During these same years, CTPAT evolved. What was originally perceived as a post-9/11 security initiative gradually became a much broader risk management system for supply chains, incorporating trading partners, transportation, seals, procedures, cybersecurity, personnel security, and awareness.

That’s why I believe the 25th anniversary of CTPAT shouldn’t be seen merely as a celebration of a US program. It’s also evidence of how security has been progressively incorporated into the very fabric of international trade.

And here a third generation emerges. Those who will begin entering the professional world around 2026 will, in my opinion, be the “CTPAT Generation .” This generation will no longer find two separate worlds—trade on one hand and security on the other. They will find a single ecosystem. The international trade we have known for decades is evolving into what I consider a more accurate concept: Trade & Cargo Security.

This isn’t just about changing a term. It’s about acknowledging a reality: security is now intrinsically linked to any logistics operation. Goods that cannot be reliably identified, tracked, protected, and delivered pose a risk to the entire supply chain, regardless of whether the customs process is correct.

The evolution of the WCO’s SAFE Framework itself confirms this trend. Its 2025 version incorporates, among other aspects, greater attention to cooperation between authorities, insider threats, codes of conduct, and the integrity of authorized economic operators. Security is no longer just a control point; it has become a cross-cutting element of the supply chain.

And where is this third generation headed? We cannot predict the future, but we can observe its signs. Current leading forecasting exercises point to a more geopolitically fragmented world, with greater competition for technologies, strategic resources, and supply chains. At the same time, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, automation, and technological risks are acquiring a significance that just a few years ago seemed reserved for science fiction. The World Economic Forum specifically identifies geoeconomic confrontation, cybersecurity, and the adverse impacts of artificial intelligence among the risks that will shape the next decade.

Therefore, the biggest paradigm shift will likely not be technological, but professional. The new generation will have to learn to simultaneously manage commerce, logistics, information, technology, security, and risk. They will have to understand that a supplier can be a risk, that a person can become an internal threat, that data can be as valuable as merchandise, and that a logistical disruption can quickly escalate into a national security issue.

After 25 years, CTPAT leaves us with a lesson worth acknowledging in Monterrey: supply chain security didn’t come after international trade; it came to be an integral part of it. The first generation opened borders, the second learned to globalize and protect them; the third will have to learn something different: making trade secure from its origin to its destination. That is, perhaps, the true meaning of the next 25 years of CTPAT. And that is the new paradigm of Trade & Cargo Security.

Connect and comment with  Victor via LinkedIn .

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Three generations facing the new paradigm: Trade & Cargo Security apareció primero en T21.

This piece has no intention whatsoever of flattering anyone, least of all my esteemed editors, with whom I always try to maintain a good relationship by offering columns that provide value to readers. Rather, it addresses something that I believe is happening to many scholars and consultants who, when preparing documents related to the transportation and logistics sector, are increasingly finding that the materials published in Grupo T21 media outlets are not only interesting but also valuable —that is, current and reliable—information to support research or to provide elements for making certain decisions.

This happened to me recently when I was tasked with preparing a document related to customs operations at airports. I suddenly realized that among the most reliable sources I had access to, whether to obtain the hard data or to find out where to obtain it, were the reports, interviews, and in-depth articles by my journalist friends at Grupo T21, or the columns my colleagues publish in their respective media outlets.

I don’t know what you think, and perhaps I’m wrong, but just as can happen to a teacher after seeing their published texts become respectable sources for the subject they teach, one of the main sources of pride that the owner or editor of a magazine—which is sometimes the same person—can feel is that it becomes a reference in the industry it covers, as I am convinced is the case with those from Grupo T21.

Or seriously, is there a more valuable source of quality public information at levels that go beyond a superficial note in the transport and logistics sector than what emanates from Osiel Cruz’s offices?

I seriously doubt it! And if there is one, I’d like to know what it is, because right now, as I try to delve deeper into the information I need to prepare the document I was entrusted with, I end up citing, at least as a first and vital reference and even as a guide to move forward, some text published by the team of communication professionals who make the publications in question possible.

Now I understand why I value my relationship with Grupo T21 so much, and it’s because it’s finally sinking in that I’m not only enjoying publishing articles, something I’m passionate about, but also that these articles are part of a media outlet that has perhaps ceased to be just another member of what we know as “the press” and has become one of those few publishing organizations in the world that have become part of the history of a certain activity, to which they have given much more than reliable news, contributing to the training of new professionals and therefore to its development.

Thank you for the information you provided in your post, dear colleague at T21. You have no idea how helpful it was for what I was doing for my client!

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo The true importance of Grupo T21 in the logistics sector apareció primero en T21.

More volume. Stagnant margin.

Review your financial statements for this year. Then read the industry news.

They don’t add up. That contradiction is the starting point of everything.

Cross-border freight rates between Mexico and the United States have risen between 8 and 15% since February , with the epicenter in Laredo. Uber Freight reported up to 10 loads waiting for each available truck. The industry itself projects increases of 25 to 35% for the full year .

And the corridor is at its peak: $872.8 billion in bilateral trade in 2025, a historic record ; in April alone, road transport crossed $64.2 billion, 23.4% more than a year earlier .

On the other side of the income statement, the pincer movement, documented by the same sector.

Diesel went from 22.50 to almost 29-30 pesos per liter, until the federal government intervened with a cap of 28 ; today it takes more than 40% of a transport company’s income .

Insurance premiums rose 34% this year, after an 18% increase last year : the cause is road safety concerns, not inflation. And the industry standard is that for every peso diesel price increases, freight rates rise by 4% , while customers reject the rate hike “because it’s temporary.”

You get paid more per trip. You earn the same or less.

And the outcome already has a number: half of Mexican trucking will close 2026 without profits , and some are already operating at a loss.

The easy answer is that 2026 is a bad year. The cycle corrects itself; we just have to hang in there. However, this logic has two flaws:

1. The profit margin that returns with the cycle will be reaped by those who are still operating by then. And continuing to operate is precisely what half the sector may not be able to do.
2. Insurance premiums didn’t rise 34% because of oil prices. They rose because of highway robberies . That cost won’t decrease when diesel prices fall.

If holding on isn’t enough, the question changes: where did the margin go?

The usefulness doesn’t disappear. It moves.

Clayton Christensen formulated it as a law: profit is concentrated in the link of the chain where performance still falls short for the customer, where the problem remains unresolved. When that link matures and anyone can solve it just as well, it becomes a commodity , and the price is set by the competition. The margin migrates to the next link where the customer still can’t get what they need.

It happened to IBM. When any manufacturer could assemble an equally good computer, the profit shifted to the chip and the operating system, where performance still fell short. Intel and Microsoft stopped at the limitations. IBM stuck to what they had already solved.

Now apply it to cross-border transport in Mexico.

Moving cargo is already solved. Thirty years of free trade perfected it: any of 20 carriers can transport it from origin to destination equally well, and that’s why the rate is decided by auction. It’s the commodity link .

What the customer still can’t get is something else : that the cargo arrives without theft, without delays at the border, and with proof of each delivery. They can’t buy that even if they want to pay for it. That’s the constraint, and that’s where the profit margin lies.

And the raw material to address the constraint is already generated by your operations on every trip. It’s called operational evidence . What follows is a roadmap for how to leverage it.

The map of opportunities

The Logistics Pulse 2026 mentions that nearshoring can bring an additional $35 to $50 billion in the next decade, concentrated in four sectors.

Automotive: those who prove origin stop competing on price

In the review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) , Washington proposed raising the regional content requirement from 75 to 82 percent . This may not pass. No matter, the agreement entered a cycle of annual reviews that could extend until 2036 , and each review is a source audit.

You already generate the evidence: Bill of Lading, GPS, proof of delivery. Today it’s scattered; compiled in a file for each trip, it’s the evidence your client will have to present.

The decision: sell the service as a product and get CTPAT/OEA certified ( 70% fewer inspections ). You withdraw from the bidding process when renewing with you costs the client less than auditing another provider.

Electronics: Guaranteed time is the broker’s highest-paying service.

Mexico accounts for 85% of Latin America’s high-tech exports (Pulsómetro 2026). A one-hour delay at the border halts operations at a plant in Texas, and the fast lane has already quantified the impact: FAST carriers save an average of 27 minutes per crossing ; at 20 crossings per week, that’s nine hours of delay avoided. “We arrive on time” without evidence isn’t a promise: it’s an opinion.

The decision: guaranteed cross-border windows, sealed arrival time, and our own price. Same truck. Different product. Different price.

Medical devices: custody is the entry ticket, and few sell it.

The FDA, the US health regulator, and Cofepris, its Mexican equivalent, require that each batch travels with documented custody and the manufacturer is obligated to audit whoever moves it .

The decision: a custody file per batch and per trip, with good distribution practices. The reward is a lock : you become part of your client’s regulatory file, and changing it means reopening an audit.

Processed foods: every undefended deduction is a free margin

The buyer validates each delivery using systems (16.9% of retailers adopt AI), while the transport company documents it manually (6.2%). Discrepancies regarding missing items, appointments, and condition are resolved in favor of the party with the record.

The decision: a conciliation file per delivery, as a service, with its own price. Documenting at the buyer’s level doesn’t win disputes. It eliminates them.

The method and the table

I know what you’re thinking: “I need a system.”

Stop. If the file is scattered across emails, GPS devices, and Excel spreadsheets, a new system will only exacerbate the chaos. Elon Musk’s rule for broken processes applies in full: first question and eliminate, then simplify and accelerate, and automation comes last, because automating the chaos only scales it . The logistical version: a single file per trip, delivered in hours, with its own price tag. Because the guarantee that travels free within the fare is valued at zero by the customer.

Even with that resolved, there’s still something money can’t buy: peers. Sharing builds trust, trust builds business, and the cluster advances faster than any single company: that’s how the aerospace industry in Querétaro took off. That’s why the ConaLog Logistics Dialogues exist —the forum where corridor operators share what works, including names, numbers, and methods.

Volume no longer pays. Certainty of the journey does.

The corridor split into two markets. In the first, kilometers are sold : the price is decided by auction, and the lowest bidder always wins. There, the record fare of 2026 will be remembered as the highest that no one ever captured. In the second, certainty is sold : documentation, guarantees, and a set price. That’s where the new cargo lands.

And there’s a clock ticking. Capacity has stopped being renewed; sales of heavy vehicles fell 35.7% in January , on a fleet with an average age of 19 years . When capacity dwindles, those who remain set the price. Those who also sell certainty come to that table with an extra advantage.

Same trucks. Same border. The difference is who prepared before the cargo arrived, which pays differently.

Connect and comment with  Gibrán via LinkedIn .

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Never before has so much money crossed the border. Never before has so little been earned moving it. apareció primero en T21.

When we think of beer, we usually think of its ingredients, its flavor, or the tradition behind it. We rarely think of data analytics, automation, or predictive systems. However, today, beer manufacturing is one of the industries where technological innovation is advancing most rapidly, and where every improvement has a direct impact on quality, sustainability, and the consumer experience.

Innovation in beer no longer happens solely in the product itself; it happens, above all, in the way it’s produced. Each bottle of beer contains much more than a recipe: it embodies science, industrial precision, and a constant evolution of manufacturing that has made this industry a global benchmark for innovation. Today, beer represents one of the most sophisticated production processes in the beverage sector, where tradition and technology coexist to meet the demands of increasingly discerning consumers.

Beer manufacturing is part of a deeply integrated value chain that begins in the fields with barley and culminates in high-speed packaging lines. In Mexico, this agro-industrial integration is key: the industry is built on solid agricultural production standards and highly controlled industrial processes that guarantee consistency on a large scale. This level of integration allows each batch to maintain excellent quality, even when millions of hectoliters are produced annually.

The scale is significant. Between 2018 and 2024, beer production in Mexico grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%, reaching 140.9 million hectoliters in 2024 and positioning it among the world’s leading producers. Today, one out of every five beers exported globally is produced in Mexico . This volume demands advanced manufacturing systems where automation, real-time monitoring, and data analytics are essential to ensure efficiency, reliability, and quality at every stage of the process.

For those of us who lead operations, the challenge is no longer just about producing more. The real challenge is producing better: with greater precision, using fewer resources, reducing environmental impact, and maintaining the highest quality standards in every bottle that reaches the consumer.

One of the key differentiators of modern brewing is its ability to evolve without losing its essence . Although the basic process—milling, brewing, fermentation, and maturation—has remained the same for centuries, the way each of these stages is managed has changed radically thanks to digitalization.

Today, the most advanced breweries incorporate smart sensors, automated systems, and artificial intelligence to reduce variations, optimize resources, increase operational efficiency, and ensure quality. Innovation no longer depends solely on large investments in infrastructure; it also lies in the ability to make better decisions based on data.

Sustainability has become a central pillar of beer manufacturing. Today, the most advanced operations integrate solutions that aim to optimize resource use and reduce their environmental impact. This is reflected in more efficient processes , the use of cleaner energy, and responsible water management. More than just a trend, these actions are part of a new way of understanding manufacturing: one where operational efficiency and sustainability go hand in hand.

At the same time, manufacturing innovation is geared towards decarbonizing the entire value chain , from the origin of the ingredients to the point of consumption. This approach drives improvements at every stage: agriculture, production, logistics, and refrigeration, with the goal of moving towards increasingly efficient and sustainable operations. Thus, efficiency is no longer concentrated solely in the factory but extends throughout the entire product journey.

Finally, the brewing industry stands out for its ability to balance scale and precision. Unlike other industries, here every process variable, such as temperature, time, pressure, etc., directly impacts the final product. Therefore, innovation doesn’t just mean increasing production capacity; it means ensuring that every beer maintains the same quality, consistency, and experience that millions of consumers worldwide expect.

Beer is, in essence, a story of continuous industrial evolution . Behind every product lies a combination of technical expertise, investment in technology, and a commitment to excellence. And it is precisely in manufacturing where this transformation becomes tangible: in every controlled process, every resource saved, and every innovation that redefines what is possible.

*Felipe Ibarra currently serves as VP of Manufacturing at HEINEKEN Mexico .

Connect and comment with Felipe through LinkedIn .

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn: @GrupoT21

El cargo Behind every beer: the innovation that is transforming the future of brewing apareció primero en T21.

Among the requirements that organizations like the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the International Federation of Association Football (FIFA) demand of countries to host sporting events of the caliber of the Olympic Games or the World Cup is having adequate infrastructure and communications and transportation services at the venues to facilitate the national and international mobility necessary for the events to be successful. Let’s recall how Tulancingo, the very Hidalgo-based birthplace of three of my four children, boasts of hosting a satellite ground station ever since the Mexican government decided to acquire what was needed to broadcast the 1968 Summer Olympic Games.

Ultimately, given the crucial factors and players involved in air transport and the logistical setup of a World Cup, Mexico should have worked to ensure its airports were in the best possible condition for 2026 , starting with those in the host cities, just as it attempted to do for the 1970 and 1976 FIFA World Cups. In fact, by the late 1960s, Mexico City was hoping to boast a brand-new airport terminal, located near Zumpango, State of Mexico, when Pelé led Brazil to their historic Jules Rimet Cup victory—a project that, as we know, was never completed. Oh well!

Taking into account my close connection to both the event and the airports themselves, including those involved, I believe I am in a position and have the right to comment on how Mexican airports fared with the 2026 World Cup, of course, from my perspective and without violating any secrecy, since this information is common knowledge in various public and private organizations who, unlike the author of this column, lack an editorial space to do the same, a privilege I will not deny, I cherish.

As is often the case, airports were the first and last impression of the host city and country for thousands of people, many of whom celebrated upon landing, but especially upon takeoff after a good performance by their favorite teams. Invariably, there were also defeats, which impacted the mood of passengers on their departing flights. I’ve said it repeatedly: airports are stages for intense emotions among their users .

It must be acknowledged that the 2022 Qatar World Cup, held in that single, wealthy nation, using only two airports, one of them considered one of the best in the world—I’m referring to the “Hamad” airport in Doha—and with the full political and economic backing of the local emir, set the bar very high for the 2026 “North American” World Cup and its airports, among which there are several world-class options, such as, in my opinion, the “Hartsfield-Jackson” airport in Atlanta, Georgia, and the “International” airport in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

The “World Cup” has finally ended, and so has the experience of being close to it for the author of this note, which allows me to reopen the files of columns in progress to prepare and give final touches to texts, as is the case with this installment, with which I intend, as is always my intention, to issue honest, objective opinions, without bad intentions and supported by what I perceive happened in an event particularly important for Mexico and its air transport and which, due to its scope, put us in the spotlight, now indeed, of the entire world.

There’s something I need to clarify before continuing: published reports and various comments on social media indicate that Mexican airports weren’t the only ones that could have caused headaches for the World Cup. Just as happened in Mexico, authorities, operators, and airport service providers in Canada and the United States presented significant challenges to the organizing body, which I must acknowledge and applaud for the dedication and capability of the vast majority of its staff, both volunteers and employees, at the terminals under their management, in ensuring that the transits were successful, which, it seems to me, they were.

But let’s return to Mexico: One of the major problems that the organizers of the event faced in our country, at least at the airport level, and which is no secret to anyone, was the clumsy management style of the federal authorities that characterized the relations between the organization in charge of the games—it must be said—with its own imperfections, and them, starting with a presidency that, at least initially, could not hide its displeasure from Mexicans regarding the conditions under which Mexico was granted the privilege and opportunity to host the event, and with a Ministry of Infrastructure, Communications and Transportation (SICT) operating as a virtual subordinate to the Ministries of National Defense and the Navy, which in turn had their own complex procedures and bureaucracies.

This compels me to approach the topic from two distinct perspectives: first, that of airports managed by private entities, such as the “Miguel Hidalgo” in Guadalajara, Jalisco (GDL), which has hosted several teams; the “Mariano Escobedo” in Monterrey, Nuevo León (MTY), with a significant number of departures and arrivals for various national teams; the “International” in Cancún, Quintana Roo (CUN), a haven for Uruguay; and the “Abelardo L. Rodríguez” in Tijuana, a refuge for the Iranians. Second, there are the terminals under the control of the Mexican State, specifically those administered by the armed forces, a notable example being the “Benito Juárez” International Airport in Mexico City (AICM) , managed by the Secretariat of the Navy, which also administers another World Cup airport, the “López Mateos” in Toluca, State of Mexico (TLC), where it served the English team. We also have the airports under the jurisdiction of the Secretariat of National Defense . The case of the Felipe Ángeles International Airport  (AIFA) in Santa Lucía, State of Mexico , with multiple national teams passing through its facilities, one of which complained about the travel times involved, and finally the case of the Monterrey International Airport (NTR) , which was virtually ignored. Each type of approach had its strengths and weaknesses, as well as its own management style for the facilities provided for the World Cup.

In all cases (private and public), the general sentiment was essentially the same: to fully support the event, even if it meant significant investments of time, personnel, facilities, entertainment, equipment, and money, but without breaking the law, especially regarding security. In the former, the costs were borne by national or international partners, and in the latter, by the people of Mexico. The question is unavoidable: Was it worth it? I believe all the concessionaires did their best to make their airports shine for the thousands of travelers who passed through them, maximizing the opportunity to generate revenue to offset the investments, for example, through Airport Use Fees (TUA) linked to a potential increase in demand—which, incidentally, remains unclear—and the lucrative, attractive, and ubiquitous World Cup advertising within their facilities.

The truth is that Mexican airports clearly had a favorable, professional, responsible, and tournament-promoting atmosphere . For example, at the “Mariano Escobedo” airport in Monterrey, they even set up an attractive and very well-located artificial turf soccer field, where many of us played a few pickup games when we discovered it during our stay. I hadn’t scored a goal in ages!

In this way, administrators, service providers and authorities within them, although not always convinced, but invariably trying to fulfill their respective contracts with the organizer, made a great effort to ensure that the transit of people, goods, aircraft, crews, equipment and personnel of the interested parties took place without setbacks for the benefit of the image of the event, and of course, of the host cities and the country itself.

I witnessed how, I insist, always trying to comply with the regulations, those in charge of any process at the airports, whether willingly or even reluctantly obeying a superior order or even aware of the need to do so – the majority, by the way – facilitated the work of any public or private, national or international organization legitimately related to the “World Cup”, often crossing lines that one would think impossible to do in other circumstances, I repeat, without violating any rule.

Unfortunately, there were those who, whether due to prejudice, closed-mindedness, ignorance, insecurities, or personal interests, attempted to obstruct the free flow of traffic or its operators at airports. They used issues of self-importance, tinged with political aspirations or misinterpretations of what was about to happen, to the point of absurdity. This was the case with the aeronautical authorities – the Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC) and its supervisory entity, the SICT – and also with the implacable, authoritarian, and always complicated influence of the military, which de facto held the final say in everything related to security and the movement of teams or high-ranking officials through airports or outside of them during the World Cup. They made decisions without foundation or consistency, decisions that should have been made by the aeronautical authority or the airport concessionaire, not by the military, generating misunderstandings among the operators that repeatedly affected the quality of service provided to those involved.

What can be said about the impression visitors took away from the country, given the scale of the security measures implemented at the airports, with a prominent military presence? This surely made many wonder, as I feel tourists do in Mexican destinations heavily guarded by the armed forces, if everything was alright where they were arriving. Along these lines, I must mention the sad spectacle of passengers of certain races being routinely profiled for extraordinary document and luggage inspections by immigration, customs, and security authorities . It’s truly shameful, even disheartening, to see Mexico like this.

By far, the Mexican airport with the highest demand from World Cup travelers and the most complications for those serving them was Mexico City International Airport (AICM) , which posed a huge logistical challenge for the organizers. It’s known that the Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) hosted a significant number of charter flights at its large FBO, but that’s about it, validating the premise that the Santa Lucía airport simply isn’t attractive to Mexico City’s demand , at least not for those attending the World Cup, leaving its terminal building, with all its football-themed decorations, virtually abandoned by fans.

The truth is, again from my point of view, to a greater or lesser degree and each for its own reasons and circumstances (limitations, obsolescence, distances, ongoing construction, management style, protests, or whatever you want to call it), our airports, and indeed the country itself, given the anarchy, insecurity, and lack of maintenance across the board, barely lived up to the standards they were supposed to provide for the World Cup. In my opinion, the airport terminals run by private companies performed their role better than those managed by the state and its armed forces.

The general impression among the comments I heard was that, at least in the case of the Valley of Mexico, if the new airport in Texcoco, State of Mexico, hadn’t been canceled, we wouldn’t have had to endure the embarrassment of the “Benito Juárez” airport, even after its recent renovation. Furthermore, I believe those who think that the image Mexico would have projected to the world with the modern and competitive NAICM (New Mexico City International Airport), managed by civilians and, even better, by private companies, would have been far superior to the one it projected with our main airport terminal, are right. In fact, I’d almost wager that FIFA never imagined, when awarding Mexico a part of the event, that the construction of the new airport would end up being canceled and that they would have to organize it based on the continued operation of the outdated AICM (Mexico City International Airport).

In short, I won’t deny that my experience with football in 2026 was overwhelming, but interesting. Furthermore, I recognize that it helped me gather even more evidence to reinforce my hypothesis that under the government of the so-called 4T (Fourth Transformation), things aren’t going very well in Mexico’s skies and airports, especially with so much involvement of the armed forces in decision-making. And that, dear readers, is what I observed World Cup passengers experiencing at Mexican airports in 2026.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Mexican airports and the World Cup: a close and personal look apareció primero en T21.

Commercial aviation ended 2025 with a paradox that forces us to look beyond the overall indicators. Global traffic reached 4.95 billion passengers and 38.08 million flights, while the number of accidents fell from 95 to 85. The global accident rate also improved, dropping from 2.56 to 2.23 accidents per million departures, a reduction of 12.9 percent. However, fatalities increased from 296 to 387 , and the mortality rate rose from 65 to 78 deaths per billion passengers. The conclusion is unsettling: flying remains remarkably safe, but a few catastrophic events can instantly reverse the statistical progress of an entire year .

The International Civil Aviation Organization ‘s (ICAO) latest safety report  clearly identifies where the risk is concentrated. Five categories accounted for more than half of all fatal accidents in 2025: loss of control in flight, collision with terrain (CFIT), mid-air collision, runway excursion, and runway incursion. Loss of control remains one of the most serious threats because it tends to develop rapidly and leaves little room for recovery. Preventing it requires ongoing pilot training, improved warning systems, operational discipline, and more rigorous management of human performance.

Ground impacts are also a concern . Although these accidents are infrequent, they are often devastating. Hence the importance of strengthening situational awareness, ground proximity warning systems, and approach procedures. In-flight collisions are another critical issue , especially in increasingly congested airspace and with the progressive integration of drones and advanced air mobility vehicles. Modernization of air traffic control, safe separation, and collision avoidance technologies must keep pace with the growth in demand.

On the runways, there was one positive sign: no incursion accidents involving commercial aircraft were recorded . However, seven runway excursions occurred, one of them fatal. This demonstrates that airports must maintain investments in infrastructure, communications, signage, surface management, and local runway safety equipment.

ICAO’s agenda for 2026-2050 can be summarized in an ambitious aspiration: to ensure that every flight is safe and secure and to move towards zero fatalities. To achieve this, it will prioritize international standardization, trend monitoring, implementation support, and technical assistance to States. The central focus is not on issuing more rules, but on ensuring compliance with existing ones. Weaknesses persist in technical personnel, continuous inspection, addressing deficiencies, and the limited capacity of authorities to sustain effective oversight.

The industry, for its part, must avoid complacency. Fewer accidents do not mean less systemic risk. Traffic growth, the pressure on crews, airports, and controllers, and the integration of new technologies demand investment, shared data, and independent oversight. Air safety is not consolidated by favorable averages, but by preventing the next rare event from becoming a mass tragedy.

For Mexico, the message is particularly relevant: strengthening the aeronautical authority, professionalizing inspectors, protecting budgets, and updating state safety programs are not secondary administrative tasks. International recommendations must be transformed into verifiable and permanent national capabilities.

Email:  raviles0829@gmail.com

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Fewer accidents, but risks still exist apareció primero en T21.

For years, exporting was presented as a kind of business graduation.

First, a company had to establish itself in the local market. Then, it had to find a distributor, open an office, hire specialists, understand regulations, finance inventory, and negotiate with banks, customs brokers, and logistics operators. Only then could a company say it had “gone global.”

It was expensive. It was slow. It was epic. Not anymore.

T21  recently reported  that over 3,000 Mexican companies sell internationally through Amazon’s international sales program, and that this group grew by 12% over the past year. The same article raises an important point:  e-commerce is lowering the barriers for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) to access international markets , especially the United States.

The door opened. That’s great news. But opening the door doesn’t mean knowing how to operate on the other side.

Today, a company can launch a product in another country, run campaigns, reach international consumers, and leverage a platform that handles much of the warehousing, distribution, and customer service. Things that once required years, capital, and relationships can now begin with an account, a catalog, and a few decisions.

Access has become more democratic. Execution, not so much:  selling abroad is increasingly easier. Fulfilling obligations abroad remains difficult .

The product must arrive on time, with the correct labeling, the correct documentation, the correct inventory, and a price that still makes sense after adding shipping, storage, returns, taxes, commissions, and errors.

And there’s something else: the customer isn’t buying an export. They’re buying a promise . They don’t care if the product crossed a border, went through customs, or traveled thousands of kilometers. What matters to them is that it’s available, that it arrives when promised, and that a return doesn’t turn into a reverse logistics nightmare.

The epic nature of exporting has disappeared for the consumer, and that completely changes the standard. For a long time, exporting meant placing goods in another market. Today, it means sustaining an experience in another market.

They are different things.

An international sale can happen in seconds. An international operation is built over months and proven every day.

That’s where logistics comes in  , not as a post-sales function, but as part of the product itself . Speed ​​matters. Availability matters. Traceability matters. But something less obvious matters too: the ability to repeat the process.

One successful shipment can be a matter of luck. One hundred successful shipments start to resemble a business.

E-commerce has reduced the cost of testing a market, and that’s huge. A small or medium-sized business no longer needs to risk its entire company to find out if there is demand in the United States, Canada, Europe, or Japan.

You can start smaller, learn faster, and correct course sooner. But that ease can also create a dangerous illusion:  confusing international presence with export capacity .

Having active listings in another country doesn’t mean you have an international strategy. Selling a few units doesn’t mean you’ve solved your supply problem. Growing demand doesn’t mean you’re ready to scale operations.

And then the problems begin: stockouts, late deliveries, disappearing margins, costly returns, incomplete paperwork, suppliers falling short, and teams still managing expansion with spreadsheets and WhatsApp messages.

Opportunity grows faster than structure.

A platform can provide reach, warehousing, payments, and last-mile delivery. What it can’t provide indefinitely is margin control, inventory discipline, or the ability to learn from mistakes. That remains within the company.

The challenge, therefore, is no longer to convince more Mexican companies that they can export. Many already understand that.

The challenge is that they don’t discover too late that  internationalization isn’t simply about selling the same thing a little further away . Each market adds its own conditions, expectations, and frictions. The rules change. Times change. The consumer changes. Inventory logic changes. Even the way a mistake is amplified changes.

In the local market, a bad delivery might cost you a sale. In another country, it could cost you your entire profit margin.

Technology is doing a lot to reduce that complexity. Platforms, automation, and artificial intelligence make it possible to anticipate demand, optimize inventories, detect documentation errors, translate catalogs, adjust prices, and coordinate operations that just a few years ago required entire teams.

But there is an important difference between making something easier and making it easy.

Technology reduces friction, but it doesn’t eliminate the physical realities of commerce. Products still take up space, cross borders, incur taxes, require documentation, arrive late, get damaged, are returned, and occasionally, someone makes a mistake.  Digitizing the experience doesn’t digitize the merchandise .

Perhaps that’s the most interesting change. For decades, exporting was difficult because accessing other markets was difficult. Today, access is becoming a commodity . What’s scarce is something else: the ability to operate well, consistently, profitably, and repeatedly.

This changes even the way we think about internationalization. The first sale is no longer the major milestone. It could happen tomorrow, almost by accident. The real milestone is reaching the thousandth sale without each new order adding proportionally more people, emails, errors, and exceptions.

That’s where a company that simply sells abroad differs from a truly international company.

Exporting is no longer a feat reserved for large, sophisticated companies or those with years of preparation. More and more businesses are able to test, learn, and grow beyond their borders much sooner.

But democratizing access also raises the standard.

Because when anyone can sell abroad, the advantage is no longer in getting there. It’s in being able to stay.

I invite you to read my previous column:  Resilience is no longer enough .

*Gabriel Gurovich is Chief Evangelist Officer of  KLog.co  and a speaker on technology, innovation and the future of
organizations .

Connect and comment with  Gabriel via LinkedIn .

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Exporting is no longer epic apareció primero en T21.

In recent months, a single company approached our firm eight separate times. Eight cases, eight different carriers, eight stories that are essentially the same. The debtor changed providers, but not their behavior: they hired the service, moved the cargo, and disappeared when it came time to pay. When we add up the outstanding debts, we’re talking about millions of pesos in unpaid freight and several trucking companies and freight forwarders, some of whom are now on the verge of closing their doors, not due to poor management, but because they trusted the wrong people. This isn’t an isolated case or a market downturn; it’s a perfect illustration of what happens when credit is extended without proper evaluation.

What should most concern the industry is not the amount, but the pattern. All eight cases share the same origin: zero documentation prior to service. There was no written rate confirmation, no signed contract, no credit application or evaluation. Cargo was moved based on a verbal agreement and good faith, which in collections is not a guarantee, but a vulnerability . Each of these carriers assumed the cost of fuel, the driver, tolls, and insurance to unknowingly finance a client who had already demonstrated—eight times—that they had no intention of paying. When the invoice is due and there is not a single document to support the agreed-upon terms, the carrier didn’t just lose a client: they became, without signing anything, their bank.

And here’s the detail that turns this loss into an avoidable tragedy. That same company had already been reported to the Transportation Bureau on all eight occasions . The information was available, public to the industry, and all it took was a quick check a few minutes before accepting the first trip. None of the eight drivers did it. It wasn’t a problem of access to information; it was a problem of discipline: they skipped the only step that would have protected them. In credit and collections, there are no surprises, only warnings we choose to ignore. Payment reports to the Transportation Bureau aren’t just a bureaucratic formality; they’re the voices of eight other colleagues shouting, “They let me down too,” and yet they still chose not to listen.

Why would a serious operator, with years of experience on the road, let their guard down like this? Because the debtor doesn’t come asking for credit, they come boasting . In this case, the company stood before the carriers and freight forwarders brandishing the name of an automaker as a calling card. “We’re bringing the assembly plant project,” “we’re suppliers for a major brand,” “this is just the beginning and there’s a lot of volume ahead.” And the promised volume clouded judgment. The prestige of the end customer was confused with the solvency of the intermediary standing before them. But an automaker doesn’t pay its delinquent supplier’s invoices, and the name of a major brand in a presentation never appears on the statement of account. We let ourselves be dazzled by the shop window and forgot to check the cash register.

That is perhaps the most expensive and most repeated mistake in our industry: believing that a large client is worth more than a paying client. It’s not true. The size of the project doesn’t reduce the risk; it amplifies it, because the larger the volume offered, the faster the exposure accumulates when payment doesn’t arrive . The thrill of “winning the big account” has bankrupted more trucking companies than any other crisis. The debtor knows this and exploits it: they disguise their insolvency as a respectable third party and wait for the illusion to do the rest . Against this strategy, the shield isn’t distrust, it’s the process. Written rate, contract, credit application, evaluation, and consultation with the Transportation Bureau—in that order—before moving a single kilo.

The lesson from these eight cases is as stark as it is simple: collections don’t begin when the invoice is due; they begin before the service is even agreed upon . Prevention is infinitely cheaper than recovery, and recovery is merely the consequence of failing to prevent. None of these losses would have occurred if, before loading, each carrier had taken the necessary time to document the agreement and review the client’s history. The tool existed, the information was available, the report had been submitted eight times. The only thing missing was the discipline to look. Let these cases serve not as statistics, but as a warning: in the trucking industry, the company that reviews before moving is the only one that remains standing when the debtor disappears.

I’ll close with a wish that is also a warning. This debtor has already dragged eight companies down in just a few months, and eight is one too many. My sincere hope is that the next paragraph of this story won’t be written by a ninth bankrupt company, but by a colleague who sought help in time and was saved.

The difference between nine victims and no new ones is not in luck or the goodwill of the debtor: it is in the minutes that each carrier decides to invest before providing a service .

Until next time .

See Salvador Bañuelos’ previous column:  Double intermediation: The silent cancer of freight .

*The author is a founding partner of the binational collection firm specializing in freight transport, AFS International, with offices in Mexico and the United States ( www.cobranzadeltransporte.com  and  www.freightcollections.com ) .

Connect and comment with  Salvador Bañuelos on LinkedIn .

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Eight times the same bill: the debt no one wanted to investigate apareció primero en T21.

The Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) has now been operating for over four years ; I suddenly realize that, contrary to what I never imagined, and given my well-deserved reputation as a detractor, I’m ending up choosing it almost as often as I choose Benito Juárez International Airport (AICM) when flying to and from the Valley of Mexico, where I live. I think I’m not the only one, especially now that it finally has its train service to and from Buenavista in Mexico City and the Tlalnepantla area in the State of Mexico.

Undoubtedly, at least in my case, it all boils down to economics and flight schedules. While the fares airlines have offered me are higher than those advertised from the virtually inaccessible “López Mateos” airport in Toluca, which has fewer flights and worse schedules, at AIFA they end up being lower than those at AICM, which generally offers more flight options. Added to this is the lower Airport Use Fee and parking fees. Furthermore, I recently confirmed that the “AIFA Pass”—now “Conecta AIFA”—does indeed cover some toll costs for passengers, but it doesn’t simplify transfers, which, in my opinion, is the Achilles’ heel of this airport infrastructure. Of course, the question of the origin of the subsidies that make this possible is unavoidable, but I feel that all Mexicans know the answer: the taxpayers’ money .

Ultimately, even considering the cost and risk of ground transportation, like a taxi, my finances end up being grateful for the prices at AIFA . And let’s not kid ourselves, money is tight, so much so that passengers “turn a blind eye” to having to use such dangerous roads as the highways and freeways of the State of Mexico, just to save a little money.

The truth is that AIFA has now completed four years of operation, and its success is increasingly satisfying users. Cargo operators, for example, don’t want to leave, even though there are signs that they could return to AICM if they so desired. Meanwhile, passengers, even the most demanding and critical ones (as I understand), have a fantastic time at its facilities when boarding or arriving on a flight. Furthermore, the quality of experience I’ve had in its terminal building is unmatched by any other airport in the country, so I have no qualms about stating that I consider AIFA to be the best airport in Mexico today, I reiterate, from the perspective of the experience in terms of facilities and services.

But be careful! I’m not justifying its construction; I maintain my position that the New International Airport of Mexico City (NAICM) in Texcoco should have been completed and put into operation , forever closing the chapter on the history of the AICM. I also reiterate my opinion that civilian airfields should not be managed by military entities, as is the case in the Santa Lucía area of ​​the State of Mexico.

The fact is that, however efficient and economically attractive AIFA may be for the user, and however convenient some consumers may be using it and positively rating the experience, the reality is that, like all the ventures that former President López bequeathed to Mexico, it is costing the country dearly, excessively so, I would say.

I’ve said it several times: AIFA is a great airport in terms of architecture and services, but it’s very poorly located, poorly planned, very costly for the public treasury, and one that should never have been built .

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Four years later, will AIFA have become the best airport in Mexico? apareció primero en T21.

The conversation about electromobility in Mexico is no longer solely about innovation and sustainability. Today, for the transportation industry, the real discussion is much more uncomfortable and strategic: how viable is it to electrify an operation without compromising productivity, profitability, and logistical continuity? Because while public discourse tends to focus on the electric future of transportation , operational reality still demands a practical approach.

Fleet electrification is indeed progressing, but at very different speeds depending on the type of operation, the available infrastructure, and the financial capacity of companies. In Mexico, technological enthusiasm still coexists with significant structural limitations: high investment costs, insufficient charging infrastructure, and logistics operations that simply cannot be halted.

And that is perhaps the most important point, one that is rarely stated clearly: in transportation, time is profitability . A vehicle stopped, even if only to recharge, is an asset that ceases to produce.

Therefore, at least in the short term, electromobility seems to find its most natural foothold in the last mile ; there, conditions are favorable with predominantly urban routes, shorter distances, and operations that allow vehicles to return to the distribution center to recharge outside of operating hours. A vehicle with a range of around 300 kilometers can be perfectly functional for operations that cover between 100 and 150 kilometers daily.

This also explains why adoption is concentrated mainly in cities like Mexico City, State of Mexico, Nuevo León and Jalisco, regions where urban density favors shorter journeys and where the charging infrastructure is beginning to develop more rapidly, unlike in less dense cities, where journeys are longer and more dispersed, the equation changes radically.

However, it would be a mistake to interpret this situation as a definitive halt. Rather, we are witnessing a transitional phase where the private sector is playing a decisive role in accelerating the ecosystem; we see how companies in the food, beverage, and courier industries have already begun building their own cargo hubs , driving infrastructure that the public sector has not yet been able to develop at the necessary speed.

And there is an important message for the industry: electrification will not advance solely through technological will, but through a collaborative strategy where government, private initiative and technology providers will have to coordinate to strengthen the infrastructure in key logistics nodes , guarantee energy stability and create viable operating conditions for fleets.

In parallel, telemetry is becoming a critical part of this transition; managing an electric fleet involves not only monitoring routes, but also understanding battery behavior in real time, optimizing charging cycles, identifying premature degradation, and efficiently coordinating the rotation of units and chargers. Here, energy management becomes as important as logistics management.

This is where one of the most interesting aspects of this new stage lies: electromobility no longer depends solely on the vehicle, but on the operational intelligence surrounding it. The energy transition in transportation will not happen suddenly or uniformly , and perhaps that is the most common mistake when talking about electromobility: thinking of it as an immediate replacement, when in reality it will be a gradual coexistence of different technologies and different operating models.

Check out Eduardo’s previous column:  The human factor in the age of telemetry .

*Eduardo Allegre is the general manager of  Métrica Móvil .

Connect and comment with  Eduardo Allegre on LinkedIn .

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Electromobility in Mexico: the operational reality behind the electric future apareció primero en T21.