3D Printing and Logistics Revolution: Will Volumetric Weight Be Completely Eliminated in Future Air Freight?

Volumetric weight, as a core indicator in the air freight billing system, has accompanied the industry for nearly a century. Since the International Air Transport Association (IATA) established the “6000 coefficient” standard, its calculation logic of “length × width × height ÷ coefficient” has always centered on “cargo volume” as the core variable, essentially representing the quantitative management of air freight’s scarce space resources. However, the breakthrough development of 3D printing technology is fundamentally shaking the foundation of this logic—when goods can be transformed from “physical transportation” to “digital file transmission + local printing”, and when traditionally bulky goods are compressed into lightweight printing materials, the core contradiction of “space occupation” in air freight is gradually resolved. This inevitably triggers industry reflection: Will the logistics revolution driven by 3D printing cause the volumetric weight, a billing indicator in air freight, to completely withdraw from the stage of history? Starting from the restructuring of air freight demand by 3D printing, this article systematically analyzes its impact path on volumetric weight rules, predicts future trends based on technology, market, and industry realities, and explores the response directions for relevant stakeholders.

I. The Foundation for the Existence of Volumetric Weight: “Space Scarcity” and “Light Cargo Dilemma” in Air Freight

To determine whether volumetric weight will be eliminated, it is first necessary to clarify its core value—resolving the core contradiction between “limited space resources” and “space waste by light cargo” in air freight. The two pillars of this contradiction are precisely what 3D printing seeks to dismantle.

(1) Space Scarcity: Unbreakable Physical Constraints of Air Freight Carriers

The space limitations of air freight carriers are the physical foundation for the existence of volumetric weight: the belly hold of passenger aircraft accounts for only 15%-20% of the total cabin volume. A typical wide-body freighter such as the Boeing 747-8F has a main cargo hold volume of approximately 850 cubic meters, a maximum single-load capacity of about 137 tons, and a unit space carrying capacity of only 0.16 tons/cubic meter. This imbalance between “space and load capacity” means that light cargo (such as foam, furniture) of the same weight occupies more cargo space than dense cargo (such as steel, electronic components). If billing is based solely on actual weight, carriers cannot recover space costs. Through “space-weight conversion”, volumetric weight achieves billing fairness for goods of different densities.

(2) Light Cargo Dilemma: Morphological Constraints of Traditional Manufacturing

The “large-scale production + centralized distribution” model of traditional manufacturing has spawned a large number of light cargo with high volume-to-weight ratios. For example, the transportation volume of a set of assembled furniture can reach 0.5 cubic meters, with an actual weight of only 30 kg. Calculated using the air freight 6000 coefficient, the volumetric weight is 83.3 kg, far exceeding the actual weight. The volumetric weight of a batch of folding tents can even be more than 5 times the actual weight. Such goods occupy more than 30% of air freight cargo space but only contribute about 10% of weight-based revenue. Volumetric weight has become an inevitable choice to balance costs.

(3) The Irreplaceability of Volumetric Weight: The “Ballast Stone” of Current Air Freight Billing

In the existing logistics model, volumetric weight undertakes three core functions: first, quantifying space costs by converting abstract “cubic meters” into calculable “kilograms”; second, guiding the optimization of cargo stowage to force shippers to compress volume and reduce costs; third, balancing capacity resources to prevent excessive occupation of cargo space by light cargo, which would prevent dense cargo from being loaded. Data shows that approximately 45% of global air freight goods are light cargo. If volumetric weight is eliminated and billing is based solely on actual weight, the space utilization efficiency of airlines will decrease by more than 25%, and single-flight revenue may decrease by 18%-30%—a burden unbearable for the air cargo industry with a profit margin of only 3%-5%.

II. The Disruptive Impact of 3D Printing: Paradigm Shift from “Physical Transportation” to “Digital Logistics”

By restructuring the “production-transportation-delivery” chain, 3D printing technology dismantles the foundation for the existence of volumetric weight from three dimensions: reducing the volume of physical cargo transportation, compressing cargo transportation volume, and changing cargo density distribution, thereby weakening the once unsolvable space contradiction in air freight.

(1) Dimension 1: Digital Substitution of Entities, Reducing Total Air Freight Demand

The core impact of 3D printing lies in “de-physicalized transportation”—transforming the “physical cargo flow” of traditional logistics into “digital file transmission + local manufacturing”, fundamentally reducing the demand for air freight space. This transformation has already emerged in three types of goods:

1. Parts and Tools: Such goods, often featuring complex structures but small volumes, are naturally suitable for 3D printing. For example, aerospace enterprises once needed to air freight precision parts weighing 5 kg with a volume of 0.1 cubic meters (volumetric weight 16.7 kg). Now, they only need to transmit a 30MB digital model file and print using titanium alloy materials at the destination. The material weighs only 1 kg, with a compressed volume of 0.001 cubic meters, and the volumetric weight is almost negligible.
2. Customized Consumer Goods: Goods such as furniture, toys, and home decorations are mostly light cargo in traditional transportation. Data from a cross-border e-commerce platform shows that the proportion of orders for customized furniture exported to the EU using the “digital file + local 3D printing” model has increased from 2% in 2020 to 15% in 2024. The air freight demand for such orders has directly dropped to zero, freeing up 30% of the originally occupied cargo space.
3. Emergency Supplies: During the pandemic, emergency supplies such as 3D-printed mask brackets and ventilator parts were quickly transmitted as digital files for printing worldwide, avoiding transportation delays and cost surges caused by excessive volumetric weight in traditional air freight of supplies.

According to McKinsey’s prediction, by 2030, 3D printing-related “digital logistics” will replace 10%-15% of the traditional air freight volume of physical goods globally, with the substitution rate for light cargo reaching more than 25%. This means the supply-demand contradiction of air freight cargo space will be significantly alleviated, and the demand for “space quantification” through volumetric weight will weaken accordingly.

(2) Dimension 2: Centralized Material Transportation, Compressing Unit Cargo Volume

For goods that cannot yet be fully replaced by digital means, 3D printing significantly reduces the volume-to-weight ratio of cargo through “centralized material transportation instead of finished product transportation”. In the traditional model, the volume ratio of “packaging to finished product” is approximately 30%-50%, while printing materials (such as PLA filaments, resins, and metal powders) feature extremely high density and compressibility:

• Filament Materials: 1.75mm diameter PLA filament weighs 1 kg and is approximately 330 meters long. It can be compressed into a reel with a diameter of 10 cm and height of 20 cm, with a volume of only 0.00157 cubic meters and a volumetric weight of 0.26 kg—far lower than the volumetric weight of its printed products. For example, 1 kg of PLA filament can print 10 plastic parts, with a total transportation volume of approximately 0.05 cubic meters and a volumetric weight of 8.3 kg—32 times that of the material.
• Powder Materials: The bulk density of metal powders (such as titanium alloy and aluminum alloy) can reach 4-5 tons/cubic meter. The transportation volume of 1 ton of powder is only 0.2 cubic meters, while the total transportation volume of its printed products usually exceeds 2 cubic meters—a difference in volumetric weight of more than 10 times.

This volume compression effect between “materials and finished products” greatly reduces the “space occupation” in air freight. Data from a logistics enterprise shows that for goods with the same functionality, the air freight volumetric weight of printing materials is only 1/8-1/15 that of finished products, fundamentally solving the “space waste” problem of light cargo.

(3) Dimension 3: Optimized Structural Design, Restructuring Cargo Density Distribution

The “additive manufacturing” characteristic of 3D printing allows goods to adopt “lightweight structural design”, reducing volume and weight while ensuring performance, further weakening the impact of volumetric weight. Restricted by molds and processes, traditional manufacturing requires solid or thick structures, while 3D printing can achieve “constant strength, reduced weight, and optimized volume” through lattice and hollow designs:

• Aerospace Parts: Airbus uses 3D-printed titanium alloy brackets with lattice structures. Compared with traditional forged parts, their volume is reduced by 40%, weight by 55%, and density increased from 4.5 tons/cubic meter to 6.2 tons/cubic meter—completely transforming from “light cargo” to “dense cargo”.
• Consumer Electronics: A brand’s 3D-printed headphone shells adopt hollow honeycomb structures. Compared with injection-molded parts, their volume is reduced by 25%, actual weight from 20 grams to 12 grams, while density increased from 1.2 g/cubic centimeter to 1.5 g/cubic centimeter. Volumetric weight decreases from 33.3 grams to 20 grams, matching the actual weight.

As more goods break through the 167 kg/cubic meter density threshold for air freight through structural optimization, volumetric weight will no longer be the dominant billing factor, and its necessity will naturally decline.

III. Complete Elimination of Volumetric Weight: Three Gaps Between Ideal and Reality

Although 3D printing has caused a fundamental impact on volumetric weight rules, the conclusion of “complete elimination” still faces three practical constraints: technological maturity, market adaptability, and industry inertia. In the short term, volumetric weight will not disappear but will likely evolve toward “scope contraction + rule iteration”.

(1) Technological Gap: Unbreakable “Capability Boundaries” of 3D Printing

The current limitations of 3D printing technology determine that it cannot fully replace traditional manufacturing, and thus cannot completely resolve the space contradiction in air freight:

1. Limitations on Printing Material Types: Currently, mainstream 3D printing materials only cover more than a dozen categories such as plastics, metals, and resins, while materials involved in traditional goods such as wood, glass, and textiles still cannot be efficiently produced through 3D printing. For example, the fiber structure of plush toys and the solid wood texture of furniture cannot be fully replicated by 3D printing in the short term. Such light cargo still requires physical transportation, and volumetric weight retains its value.
2. Bottlenecks in Printing Efficiency and Cost: The production cycle of industrial-grade 3D printing for a single piece is usually measured in hours, far lower than the minute-level efficiency of traditional assembly lines. Taking automotive bumpers as an example, traditional injection molding processes can produce 50 pieces per hour, while large 3D printers can only produce 1-2 pieces per hour, with a unit cost 3-5 times that of traditional processes. For large-batch standardized goods, 3D printing still lacks economic viability, and demand for physical transportation remains strong.
3. Limitations on Printing Large Structural Components: Currently, the largest industrial-grade 3D printers have a printing range of approximately 10m×10m×5m, but printing accuracy decreases as size increases, and volume still needs to be considered when transporting printed products. For example, the volume of a 3D-printed large mechanical equipment shell can still reach 2-3 cubic meters, with an actual weight of 500 kg and a density of approximately 167 kg/cubic meter—exactly at the air freight billing threshold. Volumetric weight still needs to be used as a billing reference.

(2) Market Gap: Unimproved Ecosystem of “Digital Logistics”

The 3D printing-driven model of “digital file transmission + local printing” requires a mature industrial chain ecosystem, which still has many breakpoints:

1. Lack of Digital Intellectual Property Protection: The risk of copyright infringement for digital cargo models is a core obstacle restricting their dissemination. A survey shows that 80% of manufacturing enterprises are concerned about “piracy through digital file leakage”, and only 15% are willing to use core product models for cross-border digital transmission. Before the copyright protection system is improved, physical cargo transportation remains the mainstream choice.
2. Uneven Global Printing Service Network: The geographical distribution of 3D printing services is extremely uneven. The coverage rate of industrial-grade printing outlets in developed European and American countries reaches 0.8 per 100 square kilometers, while that in developing countries is only 0.1. For regions with scarce printing services such as Africa and South America, enterprises still need to transport finished products by air, and the demand for volumetric weight billing cannot disappear.
3. Lack of Industry Standards and Certification: Global unified standards for quality certification and safety testing of 3D-printed goods are still lacking. For example, 3D-printed medical implants need to pass special certification in importing countries, and physical samples still need to be air freighted during the certification process. Although such high-value, small-volume goods have high density, volumetric weight still needs to be used as a reference for cargo space allocation.

(3) Industry Gap: “Path Dependence” of the Air Freight Billing System

Volumetric weight has been deeply embedded in the operational processes, system architecture, and benefit distribution mechanisms of air freight, forming strong industry inertia. Complete elimination requires high transformation costs:

1. Reconstruction Costs of Operational Processes: Airlines’ cargo space planning and stowage optimization systems all take volumetric weight as a core parameter. For example, the Load Planning System (LPS) automatically allocates cargo space by comparing the actual weight and volumetric weight of goods to balance the aircraft’s center of gravity. Eliminating volumetric weight would require reconstructing system algorithms and retraining operators, with transformation costs for a single large airline reaching tens of millions of dollars.
2. Difficulties in Balancing Benefit Distribution: A benefit balance mechanism based on volumetric weight has been formed among freight forwarders, shippers, and airlines. Freight forwarders profit by optimizing packaging to reduce volumetric weight, shippers control costs by increasing density, and airlines recover space costs through volumetric weight. Eliminating volumetric weight may lead to reduced airline revenue and the collapse of freight forwarders’ profit models, triggering industry benefit conflicts.
3. Regulatory and Standardization Barriers: IATA’s Rules of Air Cargo Tariffs and Services (TACT) has incorporated volumetric weight into global unified standards, adopted by more than 90% of airlines and freight forwarders worldwide. Revising or eliminating this standard requires complex international negotiations, and the differing interests of countries and enterprises mean reaching a consensus may take more than 10 years.

IV. Future Trend Prediction: “Contraction and Iteration” Rather Than “Complete Extinction” of Volumetric Weight

Based on comprehensive consideration of technological development, market evolution, and industry realities, air freight volumetric weight will not be completely eliminated in the next 5-10 years. Instead, it will show the dual trends of “scope contraction” and “rule iteration”, gradually transforming from a “universal indicator” to a “supplementary indicator for specific scenarios”.

(1) Short-Term (2025-2030): Scope Contraction, High-Value Light Cargo Remaining as Core Scenarios

In this phase, 3D printing will mainly replace standardized, small-sized, high-value-added parts, and the scope of volumetric weight application will contract to three scenarios:

1. Non-3D-Printable Goods: Goods with special materials or complex structures such as textiles, glass products, and solid wood furniture still require physical transportation, and volumetric weight remains the main billing indicator. For example, clothing accounts for approximately 18% of air freight goods. The fiber structure of such goods is difficult to 3D print, and volumetric weight needs to be retained.
2. Cargo Transportation in Developing Regions: Demand for physical cargo air freight continues to grow in developing countries with scarce printing services. For example, 90% of electronic product imports in Africa are still physical transportation, creating strong demand for volumetric weight billing.
3. Large-Batch Standardized Goods: For standardized goods with an annual output exceeding 100,000 pieces, such as mobile phone shells and small home appliance parts, 3D printing still lacks cost and efficiency advantages, and volumetric weight billing is still required for physical transportation.

In this phase, “dynamic coefficient adjustment” may appear in volumetric weight calculation rules: a “printing substitution rate correction factor” will be introduced for goods that can be partially 3D printed. For example, if the 3D printing substitution rate of a good reaches 50%, its volumetric weight will be calculated as 50% of the original value.

(2) Medium-Term (2030-2040): In-Depth Rule Iteration, “Digital-Physical Hybrid Billing” Becoming Mainstream

With the maturity and ecosystem improvement of 3D printing technology, volumetric weight calculation rules will undergo in-depth iteration, deeply integrating with the characteristics of “digital logistics”:

1. Introduction of “Digital Content Coefficient”: Volumetric weight will be adjusted according to the “digitally transmissible proportion” of goods. The higher the digital content, the larger the volumetric weight coefficient (and the smaller the