Do any airlines running a smaller sized fleet like the 320 family or 737 family use cargo containers to load people's baggage instead of ramp agents loading them via a conveyor belt and chucking the bags one by one into the compartment? Seems like it would save a lot of time since the containers would be ready to load airside when the plane comes in and it would limit damage to people's property and reduce claims with the airline.

Not for the 737 as it does not take containers.

For the 320 family it depends on whether the frame is specified with the kit to accept containers.

British Airways are 100% containerised on all their flights to and from LHR, both shorthaul and longhaul (except for the occasional wet-leased plane from other airlines). This is one of the several reasons why they exiled their 737s to LGW, and bought no more when they became life expired.
When they took over British Midland, their A320 series fleet based at LHR contained both aircraft with the special hold floor and some without. The planes without the container handling equipment were either fitted with it almost immediately, or relocated to LGW, or sent off lease, yet the cabin interiors are still as BD left them, (apart from the 7 A321s ex BMED, which have had cabin changes).

The DC8 was the first plane with cargo containers that I know of. Didn't work out that well with loading problems and poor reliability



Airbus has made cargo containers workeable on the A320 by having outward opening powered cargo doors. Some airlines choose to use them, others don't. There are positive and negative aspects of them.

WeatherPilot wrote:

Seems like it would save a lot of time since the containers would be ready to load airside when the plane comes in and it would limit damage to people's property and reduce claims with the airline.

It depends. It can speed up loading, but also can cause more misconnects with luggage with late inbound arrivals. A bulk cargo compartment is still used for late arriving bags and gate checks. If the airplane is heavily loaded with bags, containers will speed it up, but there is a catch since the containers take up space and reduce useable volume.

One of the benefits of containers is that it can reduce the number of workers required, but not always. It takes 2-6 people to load a narrowbody.

Another disadvantage of using containers is that it takes more time to search for bags that need to be offloaded in case a passenger doesn't show up for boarding. It's standard procedure that when you don't board your luggage will be offloaded. Then you have to unload all the containers and search them all for that specific bag. That's much easier and faster when you don't use containers and you can search for that specific bag in the hold.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Another disadvantage of using containers is that it takes more time to search for bags that need to be offloaded in case a passenger doesn't show up for boarding. It's standard procedure that when you don't board your luggage will be offloaded. Then you have to unload all the containers and search them all for that specific bag. That's much easier and faster when you don't use containers and you can search for that specific bag in the hold.

That's not true in the US. Domestic bags can go on any flight with or without the passenger. My experience with wide bodies is that it's much easier to pull bags out of cans instead of a bulk loaded put. Unloading 100 bags to find one sucks and takes forever. Knowing that the bag is in a certain can makes it easy to pull that can and sort through it.

jetmatt777 wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Another disadvantage of using containers is that it takes more time to search for bags that need to be offloaded in case a passenger doesn't show up for boarding. It's standard procedure that when you don't board your luggage will be offloaded. Then you have to unload all the containers and search them all for that specific bag. That's much easier and faster when you don't use containers and you can search for that specific bag in the hold.

That's not true in the US. Domestic bags can go on any flight with or without the passenger. My experience with wide bodies is that it's much easier to pull bags out of cans instead of a bulk loaded put. Unloading 100 bags to find one sucks and takes forever. Knowing that the bag is in a certain can makes it easy to pull that can and sort through it.

There are few worse feelings than being informed that the bag to be offloaded is in the can the furthest forward in the aft hold....on the left.

And also inevitably is the first bag to have been put in the can.

ULD loaded narrow body Airbus seems to be a much more prominent thing in Europe than the use. I believe the commonly used ULD is an AKH

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Another disadvantage of using containers is that it takes more time to search for bags that need to be offloaded in case a passenger doesn't show up for boarding. It's standard procedure that when you don't board your luggage will be offloaded. Then you have to unload all the containers and search them all for that specific bag. That's much easier and faster when you don't use containers and you can search for that specific bag in the hold.

Depends a bit on the set up. Airlines generally have a system (either electronic or paper based) that identifies what container the bag is in. This can speed up the process a lot. Bulk loaded aircraft don't generally have such a system. Handlers might know to load 60 bags in one hold and the rest in another, but often these bags were chosen somewhat at random, and could be loaded anywhere. Sometimes this can be narrowed down. For instance, if the offloaded bag was a connecting bag it could have been loaded separately, or if they can identify that the bag was on trolley/barrow number x, they might be able to tell which hold the bag is in.

There is a good reason that airlines do choose the containerized system for the A320. It is faster, however, requires more ground equipment and training to operate.

-CXfirst

Weren't there 737-combis designed for some remote locations that took luggage/cargo in containers?

I knew they made 737 combis that took the containers.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Another disadvantage of using containers is that it takes more time to search for bags that need to be offloaded in case a passenger doesn't show up for boarding. It's standard procedure that when you don't board your luggage will be offloaded. Then you have to unload all the containers and search them all for that specific bag. That's much easier and faster when you don't use containers and you can search for that specific bag in the hold.

complete nonsense!!!!

any ground handling company will know which bag is in which container, loaded when and in which order. take an a320srs, the container type it holds is called akh. it usually holds from 25 to 45 pieces of bags. the a321 will hold 5 containers in the forward hold and 5 (or 4 with aux tank) in the aft. it takres less than 7 minutes to fully load the plane, with overspill bags for the bulk hold. so while the 738 is still being unloaded, the 321 is ready to go again. if you have 200 short connecting bags, it is impossible to operate with 737s, with a320s and containers, there is no big deal. if you have heavy bulky cargo, put it on an a320 pallet, it takes less than a minute to load it. on a 737 you need planks and ropes, a fork lift and so on. the two negative aspects of containerized ops are: 1) there is a cost of keeping containers at airports and maintaining them, 2) they will reduce the bag capacity by 5%. the gains are incredible.

thea320 was not the only plane, as stated above, the dc-8 held containers as well. also in the soviet union, the YK2 had containers (was used in some cases) and the T20 was designed around those very YK2 containers. all systems worked differently form each other. the a320 uses a system similar to the one used in wide body aircraft. the dc-8 ones were (if i am not mistaken) run on a rail on top left and right in the belly. and the YK2 containers ran on the bulk floor with devices in the containers (i might be mistaken).

containers for narrow bodies are not bad, just because boeing can't produce a product with them. the benefits are overwhelming. if you work on the ramp on a 737 and you have a containerized a320 parked beside you, you understand the generations in difference between these two products. major airports in the eu offer 25min connecting time for airlines with containerized 320srs aircraft. you can't offer this with 737s. you can have the first +- 60 bags off the plane and for sorting in less than 3 minutes, if you speed up some processes. that is impossible for a 737 with double the work force.

but ok... every airline may decide as it wishes.

Air Canada uses containers on all their A320 family aircraft.. I guess they will be changing their process when they switch to the 737 Max.

Ty

Every ramper carries a barcode scanner and scans every bag-tag of every bag as they place it in the container? How inefficient. Especially if they have to take time to re-orient the tag for scanning. If they don't have those scanners, then all your benefits don't exist.

Also containers don't work well in a hub and spoke operation. On flights to the hub, you may only have a couple of bags to each destination. If you only load 10 cans, you have to "bulk load" the containers. Now, someone in the hub has to open that can and sort out the bags for re-loading. That doesn't save much time over bulk loading as it involves extra steps. You can just sort bags at the end of the belt loader in one step.

I find it to be wash. The containers add weight, complexity and expense. The payback is faster turn around of the aircraft but there is little savings in terms of manpower. The containers only hold about half of what a typical bag cart would. Depending on the load you may or may not need extra trips to the bag room due to using more units. You do save manpower planeside but that gets eaten up in the bag room/transit airside as I stated above. Finding and removing a bag is a pain in the ass for either system. There arent any advantages to either in that regard. The nature of the individual airline operation dictates whether containers are preferable of not. It works well for some and it doesnt work for others.

727's had containers and it complicated ops.

The containers themselves aren't light, usually 85lbs a piece. 10 of them in an A321 weigh nearly half a ton, that could otherwise be payload.

exFWAOONW wrote:

Ty

Every ramper carries a barcode scanner and scans every bag-tag of every bag as they place it in the container? How inefficient. Especially if they have to take time to re-orient the tag for scanning. If they don't have those scanners, then all your benefits don't exist

Every ramper doesn't need a scanner. Most widebody aircraft can be handled by fewer than 5 bagroom staff. And they can work more than one flight at a time.

Also with most of the modern scanners, you really don't have to reorient or shift tags. It'll scan at pretty much any angle, and from a surprisingly long distance.

Most operations that I've seen will only give the bagroom staff a scanner, and sometimes the lead loader.

exFWAOONW wrote:

Ty

Every ramper carries a barcode scanner and scans every bag-tag of every bag as they place it in the container? How inefficient. Especially if they have to take time to re-orient the tag for scanning. If they don't have those scanners, then all your benefits don't exist.

Also containers don't work well in a hub and spoke operation. On flights to the hub, you may only have a couple of bags to each destination. If you only load 10 cans, you have to "bulk load" the containers. Now, someone in the hub has to open that can and sort out the bags for re-loading. That doesn't save much time over bulk loading as it involves extra steps. You can just sort bags at the end of the belt loader in one step.

Containers work fine in a hub and spoke operation, as long as there is infrastructure to handle them properly. The luggage handling systems in places like FRA are automated, and that specific one handles over 20000 pieces per hour.

Bag is unloaded. Bag goes on a belt and is automatically routed to the correct loading position for the next flight. Whether it comes from a can or from a bulk hold makes no difference in the transfer system itself.

http://www.airport-technology.com/features/feature116081/feature116081-3.html

exFWAOONW wrote:

Ty

Every ramper carries a barcode scanner and scans every bag-tag of every bag as they place it in the container? How inefficient. Especially if they have to take time to re-orient the tag for scanning. If they don't have those scanners, then all your benefits don't exist.

Also containers don't work well in a hub and spoke operation. On flights to the hub, you may only have a couple of bags to each destination. If you only load 10 cans, you have to "bulk load" the containers. Now, someone in the hub has to open that can and sort out the bags for re-loading. That doesn't save much time over bulk loading as it involves extra steps. You can just sort bags at the end of the belt loader in one step.

When I used to work for UA, any bag with less than 45 minutes connection time was labeled a hot bag and either loaded in the manual or in a can with other hot bags and loaded last so it would be first off. Tail to tail transfer runners would show up on arrival, get the bags off the belt loader or out of the can and go.
On non containerized flights, bags were sorted in groups and loaded according to group. Makes it easier to know where bags are.

At DL, they're numbered and get loaded in say "5 and 6 bags go in 3, 3 and 4 in 5, hot bags in 4 and local bags in 2.......

From a Health and Safety point of view containers are much safer as you are not lifting weight as you are with a bag as the In Plane loading system does the work on a containerised aircraft.

The fact is unconstrained aircraft on wet lease to BA take longer to load than the containerised.

Starlionblue wrote:

Containers work fine in a hub and spoke operation, as long as there is infrastructure to handle them properly. The luggage handling systems in places like FRA are automated, and that specific one handles over 20000 pieces per hour.

Bag is unloaded. Bag goes on a belt and is automatically routed to the correct loading position for the next flight. Whether it comes from a can or from a bulk hold makes no difference in the transfer system itself.

http://www.airport-technology.com/features/feature116081/feature116081-3.html

Maybe, but those are multi-million dollar systems. How much savings in ramp work does it take to justify that expense? And face it, only hubs will have that. Spoke cities will rarely, if ever, have luxuries like an automated, plane-side, belt delivery system.

Flaps wrote:

I find it to be wash. The containers add weight, complexity and expense. The payback is faster turn around of the aircraft but there is little savings in terms of manpower. The containers only hold about half of what a typical bag cart would. Depending on the load you may or may not need extra trips to the bag room due to using more units. You do save manpower planeside but that gets eaten up in the bag room/transit airside as I stated above. Finding and removing a bag is a pain in the ass for either system. There arent any advantages to either in that regard. The nature of the individual airline operation dictates whether containers are preferable of not. It works well for some and it doesnt work for others.

Exactly.

Varsity1 wrote:

727's had containers and it complicated ops.

I was going to mention that, too. This was long before the a320. Some 757s also had moving floors that should have sped up loading/unloading.

I think the AKH container options gives the airlines to opportunity to choose bulk load, containers, pallets or a mix (either front or aft cargo system).



We've had endless discussions about pro's and con's. In Europe / Asia AKH is firmly established.

Few people seem to doubt any new narrow body / MoM design from Seattle will have it too.

E.g. because 1 person can load 1000kg within a minute. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4W6zbUYbDo

Bulk takes much longer by a much bigger team. It's efficiency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z5n_bqzqjg

AC853 wrote:

Air Canada uses containers on all their A320 family aircraft.. I guess they will be changing their process when they switch to the 737 Max.

Except Jetz A320s and all of the A319s.

longhauler wrote:

AC853 wrote:

Air Canada uses containers on all their A320 family aircraft.. I guess they will be changing their process when they switch to the 737 Max.

Except Jetz A320s and all of the A319s.

Replacing young A321s with 737-9 for the longer heavier transcon flights seems s kind of unique strategy.



Moving back from pallet/containers to bulk loading would be an Industry First for Air Canada! And it would create new jobs around their network.

Recently Air Canada has made conservative movements on replacing these A321. Buying more A321s and now saying the 737-9 will "supplement" iso "replace" the A321s.

keesje wrote:

longhauler wrote:

AC853 wrote:

Air Canada uses containers on all their A320 family aircraft.. I guess they will be changing their process when they switch to the 737 Max.

Except Jetz A320s and all of the A319s.

Moving back from pallet/containers to bulk loading would be an Industry First for Air Canada! And it would create new jobs around their network..

Wow, look how much wasted space is associated with pallet inside the cargo container! That picture perfectly illustrates why many Airlines don't use the AKH containers in A320s. They are losing out on volume and carrying the extra weight of the container and wooden pallet. The smaller cargo holds on narrowbodies are more efficiently loaded by hand.

The smaller holds on the A319 can't afford the loss of volume associated with containers.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

longhauler wrote:

Except Jetz A320s and all of the A319s.

Moving back from pallet/containers to bulk loading would be an Industry First for Air Canada! And it would create new jobs around their network..

Wow, look how much wasted space is associated with pallet inside the cargo container! That picture perfectly illustrates why many Airlines don't use the AKH containers in A320s. They are losing out on volume and carrying the extra weight of the container and wooden pallet. The smaller cargo holds on narrowbodies are more efficiently loaded by hand.

The smaller holds on the A319 can't afford the loss of volume associated with containers.

You should read one of the replies above that talk about when containers are better and they are if the operation is set up properly and it is at Air Canada. Like others have said, if it is set up properly, it is faster and consumes less time than bulk loading. There may be an added weight factor, but there's also an added freight factor, sorry I had to. They're not better for everyone, especially those that otherwise wouldn't have the palate loaders as that's just extra cost, but airlines wouldn't utilize it at all if it wasn't better for some of them. Look at it this way, they wouldn't be loading those palates if they weren't capable and then they wouldn't be making that money. Also they don't always put a palate in a container like that, it's actually the first time I've seen that.
We'll see what people say when Boeing's next narrowbody takes containers. The container loading bags on an A319 wouldn't make sense because the pits are so small and short that bulk loading doesn't take much more time. This isn't so much the case on the longer A320 and A321.

One more thing, nobody likes soaked bags...

767333ER wrote:

You should read one of the replies above that talk about when containers are better and they are if the operation is set up properly and it is at Air Canada. Like others have said, if it is set up properly, it is faster and consumes less time than bulk loading.

A ramp agent once told me that the extra time available in loading containers, (as the aircraft has not yet arrived), allows them to play "Tetris" with the bags and use all available space. Not so during a bulk loaded aircraft like the A319 as the Tetris game does not start until baggage loading starts at the aircraft.

AC, is then turning around A321s in 45 minutes ... same time as an A319!

When the Maxes arrive, I wonder how fast they will be turned around.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

longhauler wrote:

Except Jetz A320s and all of the A319s.

Moving back from pallet/containers to bulk loading would be an Industry First for Air Canada! And it would create new jobs around their network..

Wow, look how much wasted space is associated with pallet inside the cargo container! That picture perfectly illustrates why many Airlines don't use the AKH containers in A320s. They are losing out on volume and carrying the extra weight of the container and wooden pallet. The smaller cargo holds on narrowbodies are more efficiently loaded by hand.

The smaller holds on the A319 can't afford the loss of volume associated with containers.

How would that 300 -400 (?) kg pallet be loaded in e.g. a 737, Newbiepilot? Just wondering

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Moving back from pallet/containers to bulk loading would be an Industry First for Air Canada! And it would create new jobs around their network..

Wow, look how much wasted space is associated with pallet inside the cargo container! That picture perfectly illustrates why many Airlines don't use the AKH containers in A320s. They are losing out on volume and carrying the extra weight of the container and wooden pallet. The smaller cargo holds on narrowbodies are more efficiently loaded by hand.

The smaller holds on the A319 can't afford the loss of volume associated with containers.

How would that 300 -400 (?) kg pallet be loaded in e.g. a 737, Newbiepilot? Just wondering

They don't have to load the pallet. They can bulk load the bundles on top and not carry the weight of the pallet and container. It leaves volume and paylaod available for more revenue generating cargo.

Newbiepilot wrote:

They don't have to load the pallet. They can bulk load the bundles on top and not carry the weight of the pallet and container. It leaves volume and paylaod available for more revenue generating cargo.

If those bundles can be bulk loaded without the pallet, then they could have been loaded that way into a container, leaving space for more cargo. And that could have been done hours before the arrival of the aircraft over at the cargo hangar. Or ... just like a 737, it could have been loaded, (without the pallet) as bundles into the bulk hold on any containerized aircraft.

I am curious what that cargo was ... and why it was loaded in such a manner. As far as I can see, it didn't have to be loaded that way. It almost looks like the space around it was left for a reason.

I have never seen a wooden palet inside a cargo container like that.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

Wow, look how much wasted space is associated with pallet inside the cargo container! That picture perfectly illustrates why many Airlines don't use the AKH containers in A320s. They are losing out on volume and carrying the extra weight of the container and wooden pallet. The smaller cargo holds on narrowbodies are more efficiently loaded by hand.

The smaller holds on the A319 can't afford the loss of volume associated with containers.

How would that 300 -400 (?) kg pallet be loaded in e.g. a 737, Newbiepilot? Just wondering

They don't have to load the pallet. They can bulk load the bundles on top and not carry the weight of the pallet and container. It leaves volume and paylaod available for more revenue generating cargo.

Yes, such a pallet could weigh up to 1000kg. Bulk loading could be an option, e.g. in the aft hold of this same A321.

Getting those bags off the pallet (on which they probably arrived on the airport with a truck and where forklifted in a warehouse) and moving them in position / securing in a 737 must be a real interesting job for the ground crew involved. And repacking them after arrival. Specially if they need special conditions (fragility, 100kg/bag, live fish, cooled stuff, ACT's, etc) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9z5n_bqzqjg . AC and the many other operators bulk load stuff like this if it is a real good idea. Or refuse /not sell it in the market, if it's NB aircraft don't have the option to move PKC pallets/ AKH containers.. We will see if Boeing will offer it as an option for the first time on a new NB/MoM. That would be an indication how their customers feel about this option.

longhauler wrote:

A ramp agent once told me that the extra time available in loading containers, (as the aircraft has not yet arrived), allows them to play "Tetris" with the bags and use all available space. Not so during a bulk loaded aircraft like the A319 as the Tetris game does not start until baggage loading starts at the aircraft.

AC, is then turning around A321s in 45 minutes ... same time as an A319!

When the Maxes arrive, I wonder how fast they will be turned around.

And that's my point about when the operation is setup properly, containers are faster.

As for the 737s, I'm hoping they will be turned around and sent back to Renton very shortly after delivery! Sorry I had to.

With the 737 though I guess is partly depends on it they are equipped the magic carpets or other similar equipment. They will be slower, especially the 737-9 or even more so if 737-10s are added to the fleet not to mention more wet luggage when it's raining like it often is in Vancouver and the risk of a bag falling off of the cart and it and its contents smashing down onto the pavement. The problem with the 737 is the pits are very tight so if there aren't carpets the "Tetris game" involves much crawling and takes time and even if there is the carpet is slow and the arranging still must be done while the plane is on the stand. They have to go to the side farthest from the door and load from the middle to the sides as the sides are curved and repeat this until they've loaded everything, this takes time. And then there's the fueling in which someone I know of described the 737 as the most frustrating plane to fuel, I'm not sure why that would be the case, but I took their word for it. I guess it seems for some though they believe containers are inferior to bulk loading because the 737 can't take them...

767333ER wrote:

And then there's the fueling in which someone I know of described the 737 as the most frustrating plane to fuel, I'm not sure why that would be the case, but I took their word for it.

Yeah I have fuelling experience and I can't see why that would be true. The CRJ is probably the most frustrating plane to deal with on a regular basis. When you stop pumping on the CRJ, the tank values are spurious for quite a while and susceptible to "roll back" so fuellers will add a little extra, then sometimes it won't roll back and now you've added too much.

The 737 has no automatic mode, like most planes, where you can just "set it and forget it". Not idea, but the gauges are far less spurious and it's very easy to accurately fuel the 737. Depending on the fuel truck and qualities of the pipeline, the 737 fuels significantly faster through a hydrant system than the A320 does, peaking at about 1,600 liters per minute at YYC compared to ~1,100 on the A320. Once the wings are full, fuel flows at about 800 lpm into the center tank of a 737 NG but about half that speed into the center of an A321.

Boeing widebodies are generally easier to fuel as well. Consider a 767 vs 330 - if the automatic system in a 330 is not working you have to talk to an engineer or the flight crew to ensure the correct distribution of fuel among the tanks. In a Boeing twin, it's fill the wings and the balance in the center, end of story.

keesje wrote:

[. We will see if Boeing will offer it as an option for the first time on a new NB/MoM. That would be an indication how their customers feel about this option.

I am fairly certain that a new airplane in the MOM size for Boeing would have containers as an option for the lower deck holds. Boeing has a big lead in the freighter including freighter conversion market. Freight operators like FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc do not want to do bulk loading. All their sorting facilities are setup for containers. The airplane will probably need to have powered outward opening cargo doors. The 737 doesn't have these. It has manual inward opening cargo doors. The 737 cargo doors save weight and maintenance, which is attractive when it comes to fuel burn. I would expect a new MOM to be higher off the ground and outward opening doors as this will make it more appealing in a freighter configuration.

Newbiepilot wrote:

keesje wrote:

[. We will see if Boeing will offer it as an option for the first time on a new NB/MoM. That would be an indication how their customers feel about this option.

I am fairly certain that a new airplane in the MOM size for Boeing would have containers as an option for the lower deck holds. Boeing has a big lead in the freighter including freighter conversion market. Freight operators like FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc do not want to do bulk loading. All their sorting facilities are setup for containers. The airplane will probably need to have powered outward opening cargo doors. The 737 doesn't have these. It has manual inward opening cargo doors. The 737 cargo doors save weight and maintenance, which is attractive when it comes to fuel burn. I would expect a new MOM to be higher off the ground and outward opening doors as this will make it more appealing in a freighter configuration.

Irs almost a given MOM/797 will take containers. If it's replacing the 767 it will need to take containers otherwise it would take all day to load.

As for whatever replaces the 737 in the Boeing lineup, it likely could too as some customers swear by containers if they have the choice as we mentioned before. I imagine it will be like the A320 where they have the option for containers or bulk. This is how Airbus better pleases all customers. One thing for certian is that it won't use inward opening doors as those are a waste of cargo space as the swing pattern takes up room in the hold, a consideration similar to that taken in architecture when it comes to doors. And remember weight isn't the only factor when it comes to efficiency of an airframe and it's not quite as big of a deal as some say, if it were the CRJ-900 would have killed if the E175 and the A321 wouldn't be outselling Boeing's comparable offerings like it is.