e-AWB vs Paper AWB
IATA's e-AWB standard replaced the default paper contract of carriage — but paper isn't gone everywhere, and Letters of Credit change the calculus.
Get a RateResolution 672
IATA e-AWB standard
2019
e-AWB made default under multilateral e-AWB agreement
1999
Montreal Convention allows electronic record
2
Document types this page compares
What actually changed under e-AWB
The Montreal Convention (1999) permits the contract of carriage to be recorded electronically rather than on a paper document — it doesn't mandate paper. IATA Resolution 672 built the multilateral e-AWB agreement on top of that legal basis, letting airlines and forwarders that are both signatories skip the paper AWB entirely and rely on the electronic data record (FWB/FHL EDI or XML messages) as the contract of carriage.
A paper AWB is still produced in three cases on this corridor: the destination or transit country hasn't adopted the multilateral e-AWB agreement, the specific airline hasn't signed on for that trade lane, or the shipment needs a physical negotiable-style document for a Letter of Credit requirement (even though an AWB itself is never negotiable — see our AWB and LC guides for why that distinction matters).
For UAL's ASEAN/South Asia to Canada corridor specifically, e-AWB coverage varies by origin airport and carrier — we confirm which applies at booking rather than assuming either default.
e-AWB vs Paper AWB
e-AWB
Contract of carriage exists as an electronic data record (FWB/FHL message) between carrier and forwarder. No paper AWB accompanies the shipment unless a specific document is separately required.
Paper AWB
Physical multi-copy AWB set travels with the shipment. Required where the lane or carrier hasn't adopted e-AWB, or where a physical document is needed for financing or customs purposes.
672
IATA Resolution establishing the multilateral e-AWB agreement
Legal Basis
The Montreal Convention permits — it doesn't require — an electronic contract of carriage
Article 4 of the Montreal Convention (1999) allows the carrier's records to substitute for a paper AWB, provided the shipper is offered the option of a receipt on request. IATA Resolution 672 operationalizes this between signatory carriers and forwarders.
Source: Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (Montreal Convention, 1999), Article 4; IATA Resolution 672.
Worked example
A shipment where paper is still required
Take a shipment moving under a documentary Letter of Credit that specifically calls for a physical air waybill — a real, if increasingly uncommon, requirement covered in more depth on our letter of credit basics guide.
Even where the origin airport and carrier both support e-AWB, UAL confirms the LC's specific document requirements before booking — a bank that requires a physical AWB won't accept an electronic data record as a substitute, regardless of what the carrier's default process is.
Where paper is genuinely required, UAL arranges for the carrier to issue the traditional multi-copy AWB set rather than defaulting to e-AWB and discovering the mismatch at the negotiation stage, after the shipment has already moved.
What UAL confirms before booking
We check e-AWB coverage for the specific origin airport, carrier, and destination before assuming either default — and confirm any LC or customs requirement for a physical document ahead of tender, not after.
Frequently asked questions
No — an AWB, electronic or paper, has never been a negotiable document of title the way an order Bill of Lading can be. e-AWB changes the medium the contract of carriage is recorded in, not that underlying legal characteristic. See our What is an Air Waybill guide for the negotiability point in full.
Related
What is an Air Waybill?
Read more →
MAWB vs HAWB
Read more →
Letter of Credit Basics for Air Freight Shippers
Read more →
Sources: Montreal Convention (1999), Article 4; IATA Resolution 672 (multilateral e-AWB agreement). Last verified July 2026.
Air Freight Fundamentals
Get a Rate