AboutRam C.Menen Expertise Questions related to air logistics/cargo industry including related information technology overview.
Experience RAM C. MENEN
Divisional Senior Vice President Cargo, Emirates Airline
Ram Menen is Divisional Senior Vice President Cargo, Emirates Airline.
He began his career in aviation in 1976 at Kuwait Airways. He later moved to British Airways to head its cargo operations in Kuwait. In 1984, he joined the Kuwaiti aviation group Alghanim Al Qutub Shipping Agencies, to set up and manage its airfreight-forwarding unit in Dubai. Mr. Menen has headed the cargo division of Emirates since the inception of the airline in October 1985.
Trained as an engineer, he spearheaded the conceptualisation and development of the LD-36 (AMF) type of ULD (Unit Load Device) which increased usable space on each lower deck pallet base by 33 per cent.
He is one of the founder members of The International Air Cargo Association (TIACA), the premier organisation for the entire air logistics business, serving as Vice President in 1993 and 1994, and as President, CEO and Chairman of the Board in 1995 and 1996.
He continues to be involved with TIACA as Trustee and member of the Presidents' Council. Mr. Menen is the current chairman of the IATA’s Cargo Committee and is also involved in advisory capacity with several organizations.
He has been a resolute champion of air logistics industry and is actively involved in the development of various IT initiatives to address the needs of the industry. He has helped focus attention on cargo as an integral part of the world trade process.
In November 2007, Mr Menen was adjudged “Personality of the Year (Air Cargo Industry)” at the Second Annual Middle East Logistics Award (MELA 2007). He was inducted into the “Lloyd’s FTB Asia Hall of Fame” at the Asia Logistics Awards in October 2006 and into the TIACA’s “Hall of Fame” in April 2005, in recognition of his efforts and contributions to the air cargo industry and for his achievements as head of Emirates’ cargo division.
In October 2003 he received the 2003 “International Ai Cargo Achievement Award” from The World Trade Centre Miami for “Excellence in Promoting East-West Trade”. In
In December 2002, Air Cargo News, USA named him “Cargo Executive of The Year”. In March 2000, Mr Menen was recognized for his efforts with a “Special Achievement Award” by the International Freighting Weekly (IFW)
November 2007
Question Thanks, that was a great answer. I've researched the IATA tact book and never saw any reference to the term overflow. Is this a term/rate that is even filed in your official tariff? I assume this is always a weight rate?
I do have one more question regarding air terminology. What do you call an additional charge for an airport to airport move that moves beyond a gateway via plane OR truck to another airport and the rate is not filed as a through rate? So for example a move from CDG/JFK yielded a rate of 1.10/kg, but the cargo's final destination was PHL. What would you call the additional rate amount, say .20/kg to be added on to the gateway rate to cover the move from JFK to PHL?
My background is in ocean shipping and we'd call such a charge an arbitrary port charge-to cover feeder service OR Trucking charges between main ports and outports when thru rates are not already established.
I understand that Road Feeder service may be the applicable terminolgy when moving via truck, but what if it was moved via air? Is there terminology that can cover both road and air moves?
Thanks Again, Kathleen
-------------------------
Followup To
Question -
HI Ram,
I have a question about how an airline will assess loose freight rate minimums when as part of ONE AWB a forwarder tenders cargo to an airline in a ULD and in addition to the ULD had some loose cargo that did not fit in the ULD. The question is if the loose cargo is rated on a per kilo rate, would it be subject to the miniumum charge if the rate calculation was less then the minimum?
Perhaps they wouldn't use the weight rate at all..is this perhaps a situation where the airline would assess an over pivot rate on the ULD? If so and if there was no over pivot rate available-would they use the weight rate and minimum?
Thanks, Kathleen
Answer -
Dear Kathleen,
Many thanks for your question. Good question! Just a comment before I answer your question: the chances of an overflow of a ULD weight which will have/qualify for minimum charges are very rare. Over pivot rates are, basically, what applies to cargo in the same ULD which is over the pivot weight. For cargo in excess of the ULD, most airlines generally have an overflow rate. Say you have an LD-3 with 750Kg and you couldn't fit in another 2 pieces of cargo weighing, say 30Kg. In this case the ULD will be rated at agreed ULD rate and the 30Kg will be rated at an overflow rate. The airway bill (AWB) will show a total of 3 pieces at 780Kg. The overflow rate can either be based on airline published rate or else you can ask for an ad hoc (overflow) rate. If it is big piece, which hardly has any weight, then the chances are the volume weight will be higher than minimum ... whatever the situation, the overflow rate will apply and not minimum ... the latter will only apply if you cut a separate AWB is issue for the overflow cargo.
Best regards,
Ram Menen
Answer Dear Kathleen,
The term overflow rate is a jargon that the industry uses quite often. These days, there are not many places where TACT rates are used.... most airlines tend to have their own published tariff! In TACT terms the 'overflow' rate applied will be the applicable weight break rate (weight of cargo in the ULD included to establish the weight break).
As to your second question, generally a through rate will apply to wherever the cargo is destined to. If there is no through rate, then an "add on" is applied (you can find add on in the TACT book --- airlines may also create their own add on based on adding costs, i.e. that of road feeder service -RFS- or SPA [special prorate agreement] ). Once a through rate is constructed, the AWB is executed to the final destination and if the cargo is transferred to another airline, then revenue is shared between the airlines as per normal proration of the actual rate based on either mileage proration or else based on 'requirement' filed by the onwards carrier. It is also common practice for two airlines to agree on SPA (Special Prorate Agreement) on various sectors. When RFS is used, the cost is directly paid off to the trucking company by the first carrier.
In your example, the amount 0.20 will be called an 'add on'. It is generally built into the through tariff rate and not charged under "other charges". Hence the terminology applies to both air and road ... in fact it is transparent.
Welcome to the air side of the business!
