Air cargo traffic in Mexico closed the first half of 2026 (1H26) with an increase of 4.7% compared to the same period in 2025, according to figures from the Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC) .

During the period, 616,193.8 tons were transported , that is, 27,732.5 tons more than from January to June 2025, the agency reported.

During that period, the Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) handled 202,469.4 tons compared to 190,232.6 tons in 2025, which represented an increase of 6.4 percent.

Meanwhile, the Toluca International Airport (AIT) registered a 23.8% year-on-year decrease, ending the period with 11,813 tons, 3,696.2 tons less than in the first six months of 2025.

In that cycle, the national cargo volume went from 183,579.7 tons to 182,413.1 tons , which meant a slight decrease of 0.6% year-on-year.

The airports that contributed to this reduction were Guadalajara with a decrease of 4.6%, Tijuana with 4.7%, San Luis Potosí with 12.6%, Hermosillo with 20.7% and Cancún with 4.1% less.

Meanwhile, international cargo registered an annual increase of 7.1% , as it moved 433,780.6 tons during the period.

AFAC specified that during June 2026 the total cargo grew 1.2% , ending with 108,401.2 tons, which meant 1,262.3 tons more than in the same period last year.

AIFA moved 35,206.5 tons in the sixth month of 2026 compared to 37,708.1 tons in June 2025, representing a decrease of 6.6 percent.

Meanwhile, the Mexico City International Airport (AICM) went from 20,433.4 tons in June of last year to 21,217.7 tons in the same month of 2026, an increase of 3.8 percent.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @Evangelina del Toro  /  @GrupoT21

El cargo Air cargo in Mexico grows in the first half of 2026: AFAC apareció primero en T21.

Grupo Aeroméxico reported that the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of its alliance with Delta Air Lines  and nullified the order of the United States Department of Transportation (DOT) , which terminated the approval of the joint collaboration agreement between both airlines, as well as its antitrust immunity.

Antitrust immunity allows two airlines authorized by the competent authorities to coordinate certain commercial and operational decisions , and without that authorization, they could face restrictions arising from competition laws.

“ As a result, the joint venture agreement and its antitrust immunity remain in effect , allowing Aeromexico and Delta to continue offering greater connectivity, a broader network, more convenient service options, and greater competition for customers traveling between Mexico and the United States,” the company said in a statement.

However, the Mexican airline, led by Andrés Conesa, stated that it is reviewing the Court’s opinion and possible next steps with Delta and its legal advisors.

In September of last year, the United States Department of Transportation decided to terminate the antitrust alliance between Aeromexico and Delta Air Lines, because it considered that  it generated anti-competitive effects , arguing that Mexico had supposedly not respected the Air Transport Agreement signed in 2015 , so the termination would come into effect on January 1, 2026.

“This action is necessary due to the anti-competitive effects in the Mexico City and United States markets, which provide an unfair advantage to Delta and Aeromexico as two dominant competitors and create unacceptable real and potential harm to stakeholders, including consumers,” the agency said.

According to the final document, the DOT explained that the implications go beyond Mexico City,  affecting competition for passengers and cargo operations  in additional markets between the two countries.

In that regard, Aeromexico and Delta went to court and in November 2025 obtained a suspension of the measure while the litigation was being resolved.

The Court’s ruling of August 20 allows the two companies to maintain their cooperation on the routes and services included within the alliance .

For Aeromexico, the court ruling also means the preservation of a cooperation model that is key to strengthening its competitiveness against other airlines that operate routes between the two countries.

It is worth remembering that, in July 2025, the DOT had identified that the limitation of slots (takeoff and landing times) at the Mexico City International Airport (AICM)  and the relocation of dedicated cargo planes to the  Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) allowed the alliance between Delta and Aeroméxico to consolidate its position in passengers and cargo, with the Mexican airline having the largest share in the cross-border cargo market.

At the time, Delta and Aeromexico argued that ending their alliance would lead to the cancellation of routes between Mexico and the United States; in addition, it would cause an economic impact of $800 million and lead to an increase in ticket prices.

For its part, the DOT had argued that continuing the alliance would lead to significant problems, such as higher fares in some markets , stifled innovation, reduced capacity (including frequencies and new routes), difficulties in “doing business” for U.S. airlines, and other impediments for established competitors and new entrants.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo Aeromexico and Delta maintain alliance after US court ruling 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.

Air cargo transport in Mexico maintains a positive trend during 2026, registering five consecutive months of growth , driven by the international market, mainly from Asia.

According to figures from the Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC) , between January and May of this year 507,792.5 tons of cargo were moved, representing an increase of 5.5% compared to the 481,322.3 tons reported in the same period of 2025.

Of the country’s top 10 airports, the largest growth was recorded by the Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) , as it ended the period with 167,262.9 tons, that is, 14,738.5 tons more.

Meanwhile, the Toluca International Airport (AIT) experienced a 27.2% year-on-year decline, going from 13,151.5 tons in the January-May 2025 cycle to 9,580.4 tons in the same period of 2026.

AFAC specified that at the domestic level there was a year-on-year drop of 0.5% , as it ended with 151,170 tons during the comparison period, that is, 759.6 tons less.

The airports of Guadalajara, Tijuana, San Luis Potosí, Hermosillo and Cancún showed a decrease during that period, with 2.1%, 4.7%, 10.6%, 23.1% and 3.9%, respectively.

Meanwhile, the international market increased by 8.3% year-on-year , rising from 329,392.7 tons to 356,622.5 tons. AIFA remains the leading airport in cargo traffic, with an 11.3% increase from January to May of this year compared to the same period in 2015.

The agency indicated that the fastest growing routes were Shanghai-AIFA with a 42.3% increase , Mexico-Madrid with 19.5% more, Saint Lucia-Frankfurt with a 1.5% increase, and Memphis-Guadalajara with 15.3 percent.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @Evangelina del Toro  /  @GrupoT21

El cargo Air cargo in Mexico marks its fifth consecutive month of growth: AFAC apareció primero en T21.

The Danish firm DSV is redefining the global logistics landscape and positioning Mexico as one of its strategic markets . As the company accelerates its expansion plans and seeks to strengthen air connectivity with the United States, it faces a challenge it considers crucial: the security of cargo transport and capacity directly to and from Mexico.

The growth of Mexico’s airport infrastructure, especially at Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) , has opened new opportunities for the industry. However, the risks of cargo theft during ground transportation continue to be a concern, notes Mikkel Hendriksen, Air Manager at DSV.

“We can’t eliminate the risk, but we can reduce it in several processes. The market in Mexico is developing at AIFA. We have to improve security in various parts of the logistics chain, not only to protect the cargo, but also the people involved,” he stated in an interview with T21.

Therefore, the company has implemented security protocols for the past two years to reduce the risk of theft in the vicinity of AIFA and on other routes. However, it believes there are still areas for improvement in strengthening the protection of its logistics chains.

“The airport has the infrastructure, capacity, and space to grow. We’ve brought clients here to see the facilities, and they’ve been pleasantly surprised. What doesn’t work is when we take certain goods out on the highway,” he points out.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @Evangelina del Toro  /  @GrupoT21

El cargo Mexico, a key market for growth: DSV 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.

Influenced by competitive rates compared to maritime transport and e-commerce , air cargo traffic in Mexico continues to rise. From January to April 2026 alone, it registered a 6.4% increase compared to the same period last year.

According to statistics from the Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC) , the country handled 403,069.2 tons during the first four months of the year, that is, 24,317.1 tons more year-on-year.

Humberto López, head of Air Product at  Eternity Group Mexico , explained that due to the conflict in the Middle East, as well as an increase in demand and certain complications in maritime routes, there was an increase in fares.

“The difference between air and sea freight is decreasing, and therefore, many customers, in order to meet their commitments and deliver on time, are switching from ships to planes; in other words, the volume has increased precisely because of the variations in sea freight,” he said in an interview with T21.

He specified that the merchandise being transported by plane is from e-commerce, which continues to grow despite trade restrictions and tariffs ; the Mexico-China route alone continues to increase.

“We see that, in the case of China, the fastest-growing route was from Shanghai to AIFA and from Hong Kong to Guadalajara. This has a lot to do with e-commerce, but also with electronics, spare parts in general, textiles, and consumer products; this is what has been driving the increase in volume,” he commented.

The AFAC reported that domestic cargo increased from 119,121.6 tons between January and April 2025 to 119,740.2 tons during the same period in 2026, representing a 0.5 percent rise. The airports of Querétaro, Mexico City International Airport (AICM) , Guadalajara, and Monterrey stood out in this regard, showing growth.

Internationally, cargo volume increased by 9.1% , reaching 283,329 tons by the end of the period. The Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) and Guadalajara contributed to this increase.

“The conflict affected maritime cargo and caused many customers to withdraw; on the other hand, the constant growth of e-commerce and other products on routes from Asia to Mexico, and there are also companies that have been changing their way of working, making inventory adjustments,” Humberto López emphasized.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @Evangelina del Toro  /  @GrupoT21

El cargo Air cargo in Mexico “soars” in the first four months; e-commerce plays a role apareció primero en T21.

Viva (formerly Viva Aerobus) launched two new routes connecting Mexico, through the Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) , with Medellín and Cartagena, Colombia, which will serve to strengthen the international connectivity of this Mexican airport.

According to the airline, the Medellín route has four weekly flights: Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays outbound; and Tuesdays, Thursdays, Saturdays, and Mondays inbound, as it is an overnight flight. Meanwhile, the Cartagena route has three weekly flights: Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays outbound; and Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays inbound.

Viva first arrived in Colombia in 2021, when it began operating routes from Mexico City and Cancún to Bogotá. Subsequently, two additional routes to the capital were added from Guadalajara in 2022 and Monterrey in 2023, further strengthening connectivity between Mexico and Colombia.

To date, the Mexican airline has already transported more than one million passengers across its four active routes in the South American country.

“These connections will also help boost domestic tourism, since upon landing at AIFA, Colombian passengers have the opportunity to conveniently connect with Viva’s network of more than 35 domestic and international routes at this airport,” the company stated.

These include destinations such as Acapulco, Cancun, Guadalajara, Merida, Monterrey, Puerto Vallarta, Tijuana, and others.

Upon landing at AIFA, travelers have several ground transportation options . One of these is Vivabus, a ground transportation service offered by the airline that connects passengers to key points in Mexico City such as the Angel of Independence, the Central de Autobuses del Norte (North Bus Terminal), and the Central de Autobuses del Sur (South Bus Terminal) Tasqueña. They can also board the Suburban Train from the airport, which will connect them directly to the Buenavista station in the city center.

“These new routes come just in time to facilitate the arrival of Colombian tourists who wish to attend the matches of the most important sporting event in the world, where the Colombian National Team will be playing in various Mexican venues,” he explained.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @GrupoT21

El cargo These are Viva’s new routes from AIFA to Colombia apareció primero en T21.

LATAM Cargo has begun accelerating its runway for 2026. The airline is planning a year focused on capitalizing on the network it consolidated in 2025 —with routes from Brazil to Europe—and on continuing to leverage its operations through passenger aircraft, a segment it recognizes as “a very attractive market.” For Mexico, however, no new routes are anticipated, although there is the possibility of adjusting frequencies based on demand.

“The Mexican market is very interesting. Currently, we serve with wide-body passenger aircraft connecting with South America and some freighters operating over Mexico City. We are always open to exploring opportunities, but it needs to be a very robust market. It is attractive, but very competitive, but we have no plans beyond adding some cargo flights in response to customer demand,” says Andrés Bianchi, CEO of LATAM Cargo Group.

In an interview with T21, the executive acknowledged that the Mexican market has undergone significant adjustments . One of the most notable has been the decrease in demand between Mexico and Brazil; however, he assured that, should a recovery occur, the company would be in a position to reactivate additional flights, particularly to Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) .

In this context, he explains that most of the cargo handled by the airline is transported on passenger flights arriving at Mexico City International Airport (AICM) . “The adjustment was due to demand issues; we believe our value proposition for domestic flights is quite good, and we are always looking for ways to improve it,” he states.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @Evangelina del Toro  /  @GrupoT21

El cargo LATAM Cargo: growing without more planes, the challenge for 2026 apareció primero en T21.

At the close of the first quarter of 2026, cargo movement in Mexico increased by 6.5% compared to the same period last year, driven mainly by international traffic.

According to statistics from the Federal Civil Aviation Agency (AFAC) , from January to March 300,731.1 tons were transported in the country, 18,452.2 tons more year-on-year.

During this period, domestic cargo registered a decrease of 0.5% year-on-year , going from 88,829.2 tons to 88,353.5 tons.

AFAC specified that of the 10 airports nationwide, Hermosillo, San Luis Potosí, Cancún, Guadalajara and Tijuana impacted the total movement of goods, as they reported drops in the reference cycle.

Meanwhile, international cargo saw a year-on-year increase of 9.8% , reaching 212,377.6 tons, which is 18,928 tons more than in the same period of 2025.

According to AFAC, this increase was driven by the Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) with a 16.1% increase, the Mexico City Airport (AICM) with just a 0.1% increase, and the Guadalajara Airport with a 28.9% increase.

During this period, of the top 10 airports handling cargo, Toluca registered a drop of 33.7% , followed by Cancun with a decrease of 15.7%, San Luis Potosí with a decrease of 12.8% and Tijuana with a decrease of 3.4 percent.

Comment and follow us on LinkedIn:  @Evangelina del Toro  /  @GrupoT21

El cargo Air cargo in Mexico “takes off” in the first quarter of 2026 apareció primero en T21.