Taiwan's airlines: Q2 cargo revenue up over 40%, operating profit down

本文另有中文版：第二季貨運收入多四成，長榮和華航的營業淨利比去年低

EVA Air (TWSE: 2618) and China Airlines (TWSE: 2610), Taiwan’s two flag carriers, each posted the kind of cargo-revenue growth that would flatter a specialist logistics company: EVA Air’s cargo revenue rose 41.1% year-on-year in the second quarter of 2026, and China Airlines’ rose 43.7%. In the same quarter, both airlines’ operating profit fell from a year earlier - EVA Air’s by 45.1%, China Airlines’ by 54.2%.

Both events are documented in the same set of financial statements. Neither is shown to cause the other, at least not in anything the statements themselves can support: airline financial reporting at both companies, like at most carriers, doesn’t break passenger and cargo into separate profit lines. The most detailed figure either airline discloses is a combined “air transport” segment covering both businesses.

The jump came in the second quarter, not the first

All year-on-year figures in the table below are the author’s calculation from the two periods’ reported NT$ figures; the financial statements themselves report only amounts, not growth rates.

EVA Air’s own 20 May 2026 investor-conference presentation independently confirms the Q1 figure: on page 13, the company itself reported cargo revenue of NT$13.2 billion, up 4.1%, matching the NT$13.244 billion and +4.05% derived above. The same slide listed cargo tonnage up 2.0% to 200,000 tonnes, capacity (AFTK) up 5.7% to 1.7 billion kilometres, load factor down 1.6 percentage points to 66.7%, and yield up just 0.9% to NT$11.56 - capacity rising, load factor falling, yield barely moving. The presentation’s own words: “Strong global demand for AI-related equipment supported a solid cargo market environment, driving revenue growth.” Elsewhere in the same deck: “Tight cargo capacity fueled growth in yields.”

In the sources collected for this article, as of 7 September 2026, no financial report or investor presentation from China Airlines discloses a standalone Q1 cargo-revenue figure. NT$16.506 billion and the +5.2% growth rate are the author’s calculation, derived by subtracting the reported Q2 figure from the reported H1 total. The same method, applied to EVA Air’s numbers, reproduces the company’s own officially disclosed Q1 figure almost exactly - which is why the same method is used here for China Airlines.

China Airlines splits the growth into price and volume

China Airlines’ 20 August 2026 investor-conference presentation, on page 39, breaks cargo revenue into a volume component and a price component. The slide’s own footer notes this is “Based on individual financial report” - a different scope from the consolidated numbers used elsewhere in this article.

Yield rose faster than volume - 15.7% against 8.1%. Multiplying the two growth rates together, 1.081 x 1.157 = 1.2507 (author’s calculation), lines up with the same page’s own +25.1% cargo-revenue growth figure. That arithmetic consistency shows the two figures fit together; it doesn’t, on its own, establish that price mattered more than volume in any formal decomposition - the slide doesn’t set up such a decomposition. The same slide states, in the company’s own words: “The global AI infrastructure boom has driven up freight demand, with cargo revenue, FATK, FRTK, and load factor achieving higher growth in H1 2026 than in the same period last year.” And: “North American routes remain the core revenue driver, accounting for over 60% of total cargo revenue.”

EVA Air has a parallel set of figures, using a different metric. The Central News Agency, in a 5 September 2026 report, wrote that EVA Air’s cargo capacity rose 6.1% year-on-year, cargo volume rose 1.7%, and cargo yield rose 19.6% over the same period (author’s translation from the Chinese original). These three figures come from a news report, not from a company document in this article’s source set, and the report doesn’t specify the unit for “cargo volume.” EVA Air’s own reporting elsewhere uses tonnes carried, which doesn’t account for distance flown; China Airlines’ FRTK figure does. These are two different measures and can’t be placed in the same table to compare size. The one figure the two companies disclose the same way - in the same kind of note, in their consolidated financial statements - is cargo revenue.

In the same quarter, both airlines’ operating profit fell

All growth rates and margin-point differences in the table below are the author’s calculation from the two periods’ reported NT$ figures; the financial statements report only the underlying amounts.

Both airlines were still profitable over the full first half of 2026, just less than a year earlier: by the author’s calculation, EVA Air’s H1 operating profit was NT$16.999 billion, down 9.4%; China Airlines’ was NT$9.101 billion, down 20.6%. The second-quarter declines were much steeper than the half-year ones.

The more granular figure available in either company’s financial statements is a segment that combines passenger and cargo. Both companies’ segment notes place the two businesses in the same reportable unit: EVA Air’s segment note describes the air transport segment as covering 航空客貨運運輸業務 - air transport of both passengers and cargo. China Airlines’ equivalent note says the segment’s main business is 旅客及貨物航空運輸 - air transport of passengers and of goods. Both companies disclose cargo revenue as a separate line item - the figures used earlier in this article come from that disclosure - but neither breaks out cargo’s own profit; the most detailed profit figure available is this combined segment.

EVA Air’s H1 2026 air-transport segment profit was NT$13.525 billion, down 13.3% from NT$15.605 billion a year earlier; segment margin fell from 15.3% to 11.4% (author’s calculation). In Q2 alone, the segment’s profit was NT$4.208 billion, down 52.4% from NT$8.840 billion a year earlier; segment margin fell from 17.3% to 6.7% (author’s calculation). China Airlines’ H1 2026 segment profit was NT$6.640 billion, down 35.7% from NT$10.328 billion; segment margin fell from 10.2% to 5.7% (author’s calculation). China Airlines’ note covers only the six-month period - it does not disclose a standalone Q2 segment profit, so this layer can’t be compared quarter-for-quarter between the two airlines. The two companies also define “segment profit” a little differently: EVA Air states that its segment profit excludes non-operating income and expense, while China Airlines adds interest income, its share of profit from equity-method investees, and unallocated corporate income, then subtracts finance costs and unallocated corporate expenses, before arriving at profit before tax. Because of that, the two companies’ segment figures can be compared in direction and in each one’s own year-on-year rate, but not by lining up the absolute NT$ amounts against each other.

On the cost side, both companies’ notes on expenses by nature disclose three line items - employee-benefit expense, depreciation and amortization - not two. Of those, employee costs and depreciation are the two that can be compared here: EVA Air’s salary expense rose 8.6% and its depreciation expense fell 2.2% in H1; the two combined rose by only NT$0.964 billion, while the company’s total operating cost rose by NT$19.152 billion over the same period. China Airlines’ employee-benefit expense rose 7.4% and depreciation rose 5.9%; the two combined rose by NT$2.346 billion, against a NT$17.070 billion rise in total operating cost. Neither company’s financial-statement notes break out the rest of operating cost - items such as jet fuel, maintenance, or airport and route charges are not separately disclosed in the sources collected for this article, as of 7 September 2026, so the cause of the remaining cost increase is not established here.

How much of this is “AI cargo”? It depends who you ask

Cargo tied to AI hardware has come up repeatedly in coverage of both airlines this year, but the two companies don’t describe it the same way, and neither offers a single figure that covers the whole industry.

China Airlines’ figure is written, and comes from its 20 August 2026 investor presentation. In the company’s own words: “Currently, the proportion of AI-related cargo carriage has reached 5%–20% across major export hubs such as Taiwan, Southeast Asia, and the U.S..”

EVA Air’s figure comes from a spoken interview rather than a written document. Taiwan News reported on 29 June 2026 that EVA Air’s president (孫嘉明) was quoted as saying 今年貨運AI占比已達4至5成 - this year, AI’s share of cargo has reached 40% to 50%. The original remark did not specify whether the base is revenue, tonnage, or a particular route.

China Airlines’ chairman (高星潢) was separately quoted with a third figure, on a different basis. Speaking of the first half of 2026, he said 「科技業貨物占華航整體貨運比例超過七成」 (author’s translation: tech-sector goods accounted for more than 70% of China Airlines’ overall cargo). “Tech-sector goods” is a broader category than AI, and the remark carrying EVA Air’s figure does not define its own base, so there is no ground for treating the two as resting on the same one.

They describe different companies, different settings and different definitions, and can’t be used to check each other or combined into one figure for Taiwan’s air-cargo industry as a whole. In the sources collected for this article, as of 7 September 2026, the only figure attributed to a 40%-to-50% AI share is the one from EVA Air’s president; no written presentation or interview from China Airlines states the same range for AI cargo specifically.

The global comparison needs three layers, not one

China Airlines’ investor presentation cites three different numbers about global air cargo, and they answer three different questions.

The first is a forecast. Page 41 of the presentation cites “IATA Global Outlook for Air Transport(JUN,2026)” for a 2026 full-year outlook: global cargo tonne-kilometre (CTK) growth of 0.7%, and air freight tonnage growth of 0.2% - both well below 2025’s estimated 3.4% and 4.4%. The presentation states, in its own words: “Global air cargo demand remains resilient, with IATA forecasting 0.7% FRTK growth in 2026.”

The second is a different period from the same presentation: a regional chart on the same page shows CTK growth by region for 2024, 2025 and the first quarter of 2026. Global (“Industry”) CTK growth in Q1 2026 was also 0.7% - the same number as the full-year forecast, by coincidence, but a first-quarter actual rather than a full-year forecast. Within that chart, growth varied widely by region: Asia-Pacific was highest at 5.6%, the Middle East lowest at -15.2%.

The third is IATA’s own 31 August 2026 press release, reporting actual July 2026 results rather than a forecast: global CTK grew 3.9% year-on-year, capacity (ACTK) grew 1.7%, and the cargo load factor was 46.0%; every region grew, led by North America at 4.8%. IATA’s chief economist, Marie Owens Thomsen, said: “Air cargo demand grew 3.9% year-on-year in July. While all regions recorded growth, airlines in Asia-Pacific, Europe and North America accounted for more than 90% of the overall increase.”

These three numbers - 0.7%, 0.7%, 3.9% - cover different periods and different points in time. Overlaying them on each other, or using them to conclude that global air cargo isn’t growing, or that Taiwan is some kind of exception to a weak global market, doesn’t hold up: the first two are a full-year forecast and a first-quarter actual made before July’s data existed, while the third is a single month’s actual result reported after that forecast was published. None of the three is directly comparable to either airline’s own cargo-revenue growth in any case - an airline’s cargo revenue and IATA’s CTK/FRTK figures are different metrics measuring different things.

Taoyuan airport’s total volume still hasn’t caught up with 2021

The same page of China Airlines’ presentation first sets the export context: “Taiwan’s exports reached USD 416.7 billion in 1H26, up 47.1% YoY.” It then turns to the airport itself, with a bar chart of Taoyuan International Airport’s cargo volume for the first half of every year from 2019 through 2026, sourced by the slide to Taiwan’s Ministry of Finance and Taoyuan International Airport Corporation.

The slide’s own words: “Building on the growth momentum in 2025, Taoyuan Airport’s cargo volume reached 1.32 million tonnes in 1H26, up 11.6% YoY. Driven by strong AI-related technology shipments, export cargo rose to a multi-year high of 381,000 tonnes, supporting overall air cargo growth.” (The bar chart itself reads 131.9 for 2026, i.e. 1.319 million tonnes to three decimal places - the text bullet rounds this to “1.32 million tonnes.”) 1.319 divided by 1.182 comes to +11.59% (author’s calculation), matching the slide’s own “11.6%.”

Lined up across all eight years in the chart, H1 2026’s total volume of 1.319 million tonnes is still below H1 2021’s 1.358 million tonnes. Export volume, at 381,000 tonnes, is higher than every other year shown, including H1 2021’s 364,000 tonnes - consistent with the slide’s own “multi-year high”. Export’s share of total volume was 28.9% in 2026, versus 26.8% in 2021 (author’s calculation).

The chart covers only January-June of 2019 through 2026; it can’t be used to draw conclusions about periods outside that range. And these are China Airlines’ numbers, citing Taiwan’s Ministry of Finance and Taoyuan International Airport Corporation - not figures obtained directly from the airport operator or Taiwan’s Civil Aeronautics Administration.

Two ground facilities opened in March; the freighter fleet figures are not a before-and-after comparison

In March 2026, two cargo-logistics facilities opened around Taoyuan airport within two weeks of each other.

FedEx’s Taoyuan International Airport transshipment center opened on 11 March 2026. It’s an expansion of an existing facility, not a newly sited build - FedEx’s own release calls it an “Expanded Transshipment Center” - and the company separately characterizes it as “FedEx’s largest single investment in Taiwan in its 35-year history”, without disclosing an amount. The expanded site is roughly 19,000 square meters, about double the original, with sorting capacity of up to 9,000 packages per hour. On the resulting processing gains, FedEx’s own figures read: “Efficiency is 2.5 times higher for imports and 1.2 times for exports compared to the former facility.” Neither FedEx’s English nor Chinese release specifies whether that means the new figure is 2.5 times the old one, or an additional 2.5 times on top of it; either reading describes ground-sorting speed, not cargo volume or flight capacity.

UPS’s Taoyuan International Logistics Center opened on 25 March 2026, in the Taoyuan Aerotropolis (Luzhu District), about 5 kilometers from the airport. In the sources collected for this article, as of 7 September 2026, no full official press release from UPS or the Taoyuan City Government was obtained. Media reports put the investment at close to US$100 million, or about NT$3 billion, describe a floor area of more than 81,000 square meters, and note a partnership with Applied Materials as its Asia-Pacific logistics hub.

While ground facilities were expanding, the two airlines’ freighter fleets are two separate snapshots. China Airlines’ presentation lists 18 freighters at the end of June 2026 (eight 744Fs, ten 777Fs). EVA Air’s only freighter type is the 777F; its fleet-development table lists 9 aircraft at the end of 2025 and 9 at the end of 2026. EVA Air’s own presentation adds, of that fleet: “9 freighters operate 28 flights/Week to the Americas and 30 flights/Week to Asia.” The two companies disclose different points in time, in different formats; neither set of numbers shows whether either airline’s fleet actually changed around the two March facility openings.

What comes next

EVA Air’s investor conferences have, in the past, been held twice a year, in May and November; if that pattern holds, the next one would fall in November. Third-quarter results from both airlines will be the next point of comparison for the numbers in this article.

FAQ

Does the jump in cargo revenue mean EVA Air and China Airlines earned more this year?

No. Both airlines were still profitable in the first half of 2026, just less than a year earlier: EVA Air’s operating profit fell 9.4% year-on-year and China Airlines’ fell 20.6%; in the second quarter alone the declines were 45.1% and 54.2%. The most detailed profit figure either company discloses is a combined “air transport” segment that bundles passenger and cargo together - EVA Air’s segment profit fell 13.3% in the first half, China Airlines’ fell 35.7% - and neither breaks out cargo’s own profit. Cargo revenue rising and segment profit falling happened in the same period; the financial statements don’t say whether cargo itself made money.

Do both airlines say AI-related cargo accounts for 40% to 50% of their business?

In the sources collected for this article, as of 7 September 2026, no. That figure comes from remarks attributed to EVA Air’s president (孫嘉明), in media interviews, without a stated base - revenue, tonnage, or a specific route. China Airlines’ written investor presentation instead states that AI-related goods account for “5%–20%” of freight bookings at major export gateways such as Taiwan, Southeast Asia and the United States. The two figures use different definitions and can’t be combined into one industry-wide number.

Was Taoyuan airport’s cargo volume in the first half of 2026 a multi-year high?

Only the export portion. Per China Airlines’ investor presentation, which cites Taiwan’s Ministry of Finance and Taoyuan International Airport Corporation, total cargo volume at Taoyuan in H1 2026 was 1.319 million tonnes - still below the 1.358 million tonnes handled in H1 2021. Export volume, at 381,000 tonnes, was higher than H1 2021’s 364,000 tonnes; the presentation describes that as a “multi-year high”, covering the years shown in this particular chart rather than an unqualified, all-time record.

Can the two airlines’ cargo-volume growth rates be compared directly?

No. EVA Air reports tonnes carried, which doesn’t account for distance flown; China Airlines reports revenue tonne-kilometres (FRTK), which does. These are two different measures and shouldn’t be placed side by side. The one figure that can be compared directly is cargo revenue, since both companies disclose it the same way, in the same kind of note, in their consolidated financial statements.

Sources

• EVA Air (長榮航空) Q2 2026 consolidated financial report (revenue note; consolidated statement of comprehensive income; segment note)
• China Airlines (中華航空) Q2 2026 consolidated financial report (revenue note; consolidated statement of comprehensive income; segment note)
• China Airlines investor-conference presentation (中華航空法人說明會簡報), 20 August 2026 - company-published English-language version quoted directly
• EVA Air investor-conference presentation (長榮航空法人說明會簡報), 20 May 2026 - company-published English-language version quoted directly
• IATA press release, “Air Cargo Demand Grows 3.9% in July” (31 August 2026)
• FedEx official press release, “FedEx Opens Expanded Transshipment Center at Taoyuan International Airport” (11 March 2026)
• Central News Agency (中央社) report, 5 September 2026 (byline: 江明晏)
• Taiwan News report, 29 June 2026 (quoting EVA Air’s president, 孫嘉明)
• Yahoo Finance interview report (quoting China Airlines’ chairman, 高星潢)
• TechNews (科技新報), 「斥資30億！UPS啟用桃園國際物流中心，應材選為儲運中心」 (25 March 2026)

This article summarises figures and statements disclosed in the two companies’ published financial statements, investor presentations and official press releases. It is not investment advice.