• The US Department of Transportation has yet to finalise its proposed ban on Mexican carriers transporting belly cargo on passenger flights between Mexico City and the US, leaving airlines and shippers in regulatory uncertainty nearly three months after initiating the measure
• The proposed restriction is framed as a proportionate response to Mexico’s 2023 relocation of all-cargo operators from AICM to Felipe Ángeles Airport, but Mexican carriers including Aeromexico argue it would disrupt supply chains and passenger connectivity without addressing airport capacity issues
• Broader enforcement actions remain in place, with 13 Mexican routes suspended and approvals for new services frozen, while diplomatic engagement continues but no immediate resolution appears forthcoming

With barely three weeks to go until Friday 13 February, a date some industry observers have half-jokingly dubbed the 108-day retaliation deadline, there has still been no update from the US Department of Transportation (DOT) on whether it will finalise its proposed ban on Mexican carriers carrying belly cargo on passenger flights between Mexico City International Airport (AICM) and the United States.

The absence of clarity comes nearly three months after the DOT escalated its long-running dispute with Mexico over access, slots and cargo operations at Mexico City’s airports. On 28 October, the Department announced a package of enforcement measures that included banning two existing and 11 proposed AIFA/AICM–US routes operated by Mexican carriers. Those route suspensions remain in force 87 days later, with no indication they will be lifted in the near term.

At the same time, the DOT issued a show-cause order proposing a symmetrical restriction on Mexican airlines, which would prohibit them from transporting cargo in the holds of passenger aircraft on AICM–US services. The measure was framed as a response to Mexico’s 2023 decision to expel all-cargo operators from AICM and force them to relocate to Felipe Ángeles International Airport, while continuing to allow passenger airlines to carry freight.

The Department has argued that this carve-out created a competitive imbalance inconsistent with the US–Mexico Air Transport Agreement, prompting what it characterised as proportionate retaliatory action. The proposed transition period of 108 days was widely interpreted as a deliberate mirror of the timeframe Mexico originally imposed on cargo operators to vacate AICM.

Mexico’s largest carrier, Aeromexico, formally objected to the proposed belly-cargo prohibition, arguing that the DOT had failed to demonstrate any material distortion of competition and warning that the measure would harm supply chains and passenger connectivity without addressing the underlying airport capacity issues. Other Mexican airlines made similar submissions during the consultation process.

Despite the expiry of comment and reply deadlines late last year, no final order has yet been published. The DOT has also given no public indication as to whether the cargo ban will be adopted, amended or quietly shelved, leaving airlines, freight forwarders and shippers in regulatory limbo.

What is clear is that the broader enforcement action remains very much alive. The suspension of 13 Mexican routes continues to constrain network planning, and the DOT has frozen approvals for additional frequencies and new services pending what it describes as Mexico’s return to full compliance with bilateral obligations. Mexican authorities, for their part, continue to defend their airport policies on safety and capacity grounds, while signalling a willingness to engage diplomatically.

For now, the standoff shows little sign of imminent resolution. With mid-February approaching and no fresh guidance from Washington, expectations are muted.