Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

keesje · Fri Jun 16, 2017 10:52 pm

.
The main standard for using containers for luggage and cargo are LD3 variants for WideBodies and LD3-45 for NarrowBodies like A320, MS21 and C919.

The 7 abreast 767 suffered from the inbetween width of its fuselage and introduced the LD2.

When a new 2-3-2 fuselage is introduced it might be practical to introduce a convertible, extendable version of the widely used AKH / LD3-45.

To make efficient use of available belly space and save room for cargo pallets or/and auxiliary fuel tanks.

Such a container could be used on both A320 series (C919, MS21) and new MoM / NMA sized aircraft.

It could be converted from Narrowbody into Mediumbody width in seconds.

The extra weight of the convertable container is neglectable in relation to revenue volume opportunity, the 1500KG load and operational flexibility for mixed fleets.

mjoelnir · Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:08 pm

The advantage for freight in containers and having standardised sizes is, being able to take a loaded container and stuff it into the next bird. The only container size being able to fit many different birds is the LD-3 and than you end up with A300/330/340 fuselage diameter, with 8 pax a row, as a minimum size. But the 767 has shown that you can have a specialised container for an aircraft family. If the MoM can use something bigger than a LD3-45, it will just get its own specialised one.

jupiter2 · Sat Jun 17, 2017 3:27 am

How many Airbus 319/20/21 operators actually use the LD3-45 ? I know they're popular on A-net, but when I was in airfreight I hated them. Next to useless for the task that we had to use them for, so we gave up and either lodged the freight loose with that particular airline, or more commonly moved to another airline and utilised bigger containers.

As for the idea of an expandable container, well I'm sure the airlines who do use the LD3-45 would just be thrilled at having to carry around the extra weight and the reduced available space for freight of an expandable container. Not going to happen. If it gets built and has a unique cross section, the MOM will have a unique container, custom designed to make the best use of all the space available, as mjoelnir has already mentioned.

mjoelnir · Sat Jun 17, 2017 8:40 am

jupiter2 wrote:
How many Airbus 319/20/21 operators actually use the LD3-45 ? I know they're popular on A-net, but when I was in airfreight I hated them. Next to useless for the task that we had to use them for, so we gave up and either lodged the freight loose with that particular airline, or more commonly moved to another airline and utilised bigger containers.

As for the idea of an expandable container, well I'm sure the airlines who do use the LD3-45 would just be thrilled at having to carry around the extra weight and the reduced available space for freight of an expandable container. Not going to happen. If it gets built and has a unique cross section, the MOM will have a unique container, custom designed to make the best use of all the space available, as mjoelnir has already mentioned.

I have read about you not liking the LD3-45 before. As far as I know the LD3-45 is widely used, one sees a lot of them around the airports. It is difficult to do a search about what airlines use it, the usage or non usage is not advertised by most airlines.

keesje · Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:56 am

You could put the stuff you put in 5 AKH's in 3 of those when you extend them. Saving weight & freeing up space.
:point:

You could stuff bigger goods in them. Revenue potential.
:point:

They're AKH's. You could use them on the thousands of A320/321s worldwide from day 1.
:point:

The increase of tare would be only less than 1% compared to current (up to 1500kg) AKH's.
:point:

A MoM like aircraft could also use conventional AKH's if more practicle, or a mix dependent on freight density.
:point:

New MoM availability would be low the first years. Fitting in the current container standard is a big bonus.

Re-inventing a entirely new standard proved very moderate successful on the 767's LD2's. The industry is conservative.

a 6 sq m volume container makes more sense to transfer onward onto a 787 /A330 sized aircraft than a 3sq m AKH.

seahawk · Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:27 am

Operationally it still would be a type you would track separately and would preferably use on a the MoM. It would be wasted to be used on the A320, especially as it would be rare.

Newbiepilot · Sat Jun 17, 2017 12:17 pm

jupiter2 wrote:

As for the idea of an expandable container, well I'm sure the airlines who do use the LD3-45 would just be thrilled at having to carry around the extra weight and the reduced available space for freight of an expandable container. Not going to happen. If it gets built and has a unique cross section, the MOM will have a unique container, custom designed to make the best use of all the space available, as mjoelnir has already mentioned.

It is a rather simple business case to analyze whether an expandable LD3-45 or a brand new container type is better. The expandable LD3-45 will add some weight and most likely lose some volume due to hinges and the adjustable mechanism in the smaller configuration. The same drawbacks would exist in the expanded configuration as well as possibly losing some potential available cargo volume in the hold since it may not be the correct height or contour to fill all useable space. Weight is incredibly important in such a trade. Cargo containers are cheap compared to the fuel expenses. I have heard that A single extra pound of weight can result in $10,000 extra fuel burned over the life of an airplane or more. Each airline has its own evaluation numbers when deciding to incorporate fuel saving paybacks are.

An engineer can easily run the numbers for an airline to decide what is best. The fact that none of the US A320 family based operators use LD3-45s will make that a pretty easy business case for US based operators.

Stitch · Sat Jun 17, 2017 4:49 pm

I expect MOM to either use the LD3-45 or the LD2. I expect most, if not all, airlines do not directly interline lower hold ULDs between airframes so the advantage is the container itself, not it's dimensional compatibility.

Boeing sold a shedload of 767s so the LD2 is pretty common and would not be a burden to any operator adding it to their mix if they ordered a MOM that utilized them. Let us not forget that 707s and 727s offered containerized cargo long before the A320 came along with it's own unique ULD and airlines didn't bat an eye at needing to move to the it. I don't see them batting an eye at moving to the LD2 if that is what is necessary.

keesje · Sat Jun 17, 2017 5:58 pm

Not many 767's / LD2 left outside the US. LD2 is high/ impracticle for a medium wide body. Assuming a LD3-45 might be a good option but something competible, using the same space but 60% more volume not, because it weighs 1 % more.. Ignoring the operational commercial opportunities!

US based operators don't use AKH's because MD80's, 737's, 757's didn't either. It's not really important to have containers for e.g the MAX., as concluded here often because US operators don't use them. The chances of a new NSA, NMA, MoM not having the dapability are considered practicle 0 at the same time.

Stitch · Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:21 pm

keesje wrote:
Not many 767's / LD2 left outside the US.

It's not like the industry lacks the ability to make more LD2s, though.

keesje wrote:
LD2 is impracticle for a medium wide body.

Dual LD2s offer about double the capacity of a single LD3-45. Depending on the fuselage diameter and underfloor hold space, it could be a much more effective option for cargo.

CrimsonNL · Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:39 pm

This is an interesting concept but to be honest I think you are overlooking a major problem; durability. Even the most well-maintained AKHs suffer from incredible abuse and are often found with punctures and tears all over. Though the puncturing is less of a problem with fiberglass panels you also get displaced panels, bent floor plates etc etc. I think these expandable AKHs would be grounded after just days of service after the sliding rails and sections will inevitably get warped/bend preventing the container from collapsing or expanding.

My two (euro) cents,

Martijn

keesje · Sat Jun 17, 2017 9:08 pm

CrimsonNL wrote:
This is an interesting concept but to be honest I think you are overlooking a major problem; durability. Even the most well-maintained AKHs suffer from incredible abuse and are often found with punctures and tears all over. Though the puncturing is less of a problem with fiberglass panels you also get displaced panels, bent floor plates etc etc. I think these expandable AKHs would be grounded after just days of service after the sliding rails and sections will inevitably get warped/bend preventing the container from collapsing or expanding.

My two (euro) cents,

Martijn

Martijn agree. I've been considering different options. This sliding mechanism can't be simple,ruggedized and light enough. The AKH's are light (~80kg) for what they can carry (1500kg) and I included a weight penalty for such a mechanism. I guess with all harsh requirements it comes down to good engineering. It's not gonna be a smooth thin slide like you typically see in seats/galleys. I've seen similar constructions were you have to lift a section and move it until it falls in place and is lock it. The integrity of the side walls and top has also to be guaranteed.

The are various variants of AKH's already e.g. for fork lifts and the PKC pallet, cooled ones etc. I assume an extended variant can be done, the challenge is to do it light, cheap and pratical..

Blotto · Sat Jun 17, 2017 10:41 pm

My experience with containers is: Everything that is somehow movable will break rather sooner than later. It doesn't really make sense to give up THE advantage of a container and instead deal with the hassle of not fully converted containers where the mechanism is somehow stuck

Newbiepilot · Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:42 am

keesje wrote:

I think the idea of an expandable cargo container that can be used on both an A320 and an airplane that hasn't been launched and doesn't exist is an answer to a question no body is asking. There are so many reasons why it is not very practical yet somehow someone already has a patent pending on it.

keesje · Fri Jun 23, 2017 9:23 pm

Tare of a regular AKH is about 80-84kg. The additional mechanism and plate material take some weight but less than 1 percent of an AkH in operation.

A fixed extra wide LD3-45 would lack the flexibility. It would still have .x% extra weight but no application on the thousands of A320/21s around the world.

Underusing available belly space seems a weak business strategy for any airline.

frmrCapCadet · Sat Jun 24, 2017 1:31 pm

At the design stage the belly can, to a degree, be made as large as the airlines want. My suspicion is that they will settle for what ever gives the best CASM for passengers. As an aside, WN's 737s while not all that great for freight provide enough space for WN to regularly win awards for their freight division.

BawliBooch · Sun Jun 25, 2017 3:33 am

Whats the weight penalty?

767333ER · Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:57 am

Here's the issue I see with this logic. Boeing no doubt is designing this plane in mind with it selling very well within the US. No airline in the US has AKH containers as none of the A320 fleets in the US use them. Many airlines do have the 767 with its DPE container on property, it would make more sense for them if the 797 took those. Another thing is if the thing is 2-3-2 surely it would be wide enough to take more than AKH eve if elliptical so using AKH could waste potential cargo capacity.

I don't see what the big deal is which type of box it can take. It is slated to be a 767 replacement and if it does such airlines using it for that would already have DPE and if they don't have 767s to replace it is likely that they are expanding their fleet which generally means they are expanding their collection of containers anyway, sure it would be less convenient for some, but far from a deal breaker if the economics are otherwise as great as they are supposed to be.

B777LRF · Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:01 am

From someone who used to be the station manager of a ULD repair facility: I'll give this 'extension mechanism' a service life of between 2 and 4 days before it breaks. Seriously, ULDs are abused during ground handling like nothing else. They are dropped, pushed, driven into and generally treated like the dirt under your shoes. The key to durability is simplicity and ruggedness; introducing an extension mechanism, however simple and rugged, will simply lead to an increase in repairs, which means increased downtime and that in turn means the airline(s) need to purchase a larger number of ULDs to ensure there's enough around.

jupiter2 · Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:12 am

Most international operators of the 767 used the LD-8 container, or DQF. It is a full width contoured container and did away with the need to use the LD-2 side by side. It saved weight and increased volume available compared to the LD-2. Similarly there is the ALF, or LD-6, it fits full width on the 747, 777, 787, 330, 380, MD11 and if there are any left L1011 and DC10.

Full width contoured containers save weight and increase volume and I would assume LD3-45 users would attest to that as well. So I would assume that if the MoM has a unique under floor cross section, then it to will have a unique container, it isn't really a big deal and makes maximum use of the available space.

Is anybody able to advise if all 320 series aircraft are built with the capability to take the LD3-45, or is it an only an option that customers have to specify to Airbus ? I would expect that a cargo hold floor equiped to handle the containers would have added weight compared to one without for the handling system.

B777LRF · Tue Jun 27, 2017 6:35 pm

jupiter2 wrote:
Is anybody able to advise if all 320 series aircraft are built with the capability to take the LD3-45, or is it an only an option that customers have to specify to Airbus ? I would expect that a cargo hold floor equiped to handle the containers would have added weight compared to one without for the handling system.

It's a customer specified option and, yes, it does add weight compared to a conventional floor. Ground handling in the US is 'cheap' compared to most of Europe, and US carriers don't have to bother themselves with transfer of bags from international to domestic flights. This all lends to the non-ULD carrying option being the preferred, whilst in Europe the opposite may well be the case for network carriers.

As an example, a well-known handling company are turning around containerised A32X using only 2 staff members. Bulk loaded, the same aircraft need 3 staff - 4 if it's 'heavy'. Both for a 'standard' 30-minute turn, employing 1 or 2 Powerstow belt-loaders on the bulk loaded aircraft, and 1 'CLC' loader on the ULD aircraft. In other words, it's a question of GSE and staff cost vs fuel and ULD management cost.

jupiter2 · Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:16 pm

B777LRF wrote:
jupiter2 wrote:
Is anybody able to advise if all 320 series aircraft are built with the capability to take the LD3-45, or is it an only an option that customers have to specify to Airbus ? I would expect that a cargo hold floor equiped to handle the containers would have added weight compared to one without for the handling system.

It's a customer specified option and, yes, it does add weight compared to a conventional floor. Ground handling in the US is 'cheap' compared to most of Europe, and US carriers don't have to bother themselves with transfer of bags from international to domestic flights. This all lends to the non-ULD carrying option being the preferred, whilst in Europe the opposite may well be the case for network carriers.

As an example, a well-known handling company are turning around containerised A32X using only 2 staff members. Bulk loaded, the same aircraft need 3 staff - 4 if it's 'heavy'. Both for a 'standard' 30-minute turn, employing 1 or 2 Powerstow belt-loaders on the bulk loaded aircraft, and 1 'CLC' loader on the ULD aircraft. In other words, it's a question of GSE and staff cost vs fuel and ULD management cost.

Thanks for that, so I would assume from that then, that not every 320 coming on/off lease would be suitable for all 320 operators. I just came back from a trip through a few Asian ports and they were a bit of a mixed bag, some with containers and some bulk loaded. Are the floors powered, or is the power derived from man ?

B777LRF · Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:59 am

jupiter2 wrote:
Thanks for that, so I would assume from that then, that not every 320 coming on/off lease would be suitable for all 320 operators. I just came back from a trip through a few Asian ports and they were a bit of a mixed bag, some with containers and some bulk loaded. Are the floors powered, or is the power derived from man ?

The floor is powered, but I don't know if it's possible to change from a ULD carrying to a bulk loaded floor. I suppose it is, if you're willing to pay for it. Probably easier to rip the powered floor out and replace with a bulk carrying floor, and since most 2nd hand aircraft goes to 2nd and 3rd tier airline with little to no use of ULDs, I wouldn't be surprised if it's been done on a few occassions.

CrimsonNL · Fri Jun 30, 2017 10:38 am

B777LRF wrote:
The floor is powered, but I don't know if it's possible to change from a ULD carrying to a bulk loaded floor. I suppose it is, if you're willing to pay for it.

The 320s transferred from LH to 4U/EW get sort of a "bulk" conversion by installing metal plates with nets and posts on top of the ULD floor. They get loaded like a PMC and then they are secured in place. The end result looks just like a regular bulk loaded 320 only the available volume is reduced because these plates and the ULD locking system.

Martijn

B777LRF · Fri Jun 30, 2017 11:22 am

CrimsonNL wrote:
The 320s transferred from LH to 4U/EW get sort of a "bulk" conversion by installing metal plates with nets and posts on top of the ULD floor. They get loaded like a PMC and then they are secured in place. The end result looks just like a regular bulk loaded 320 only the available volume is reduced because these plates and the ULD locking system.

Martijn

Thanks for the reminder. Come to think of it, Vueling did the very same thing when the converted from ULD to bulk. Our ramp guys hated that floor, though, as the 'pallets' were not fully fixed in place and do slide a bit forward/aft. This make for unsure footing and presents a H&S issue. Vueling, not surprisingly, were not interested in hearing about those concerns.

keesje · Fri Jun 30, 2017 2:54 pm

Some time ago Leeham made some NMA concepts. Fitting in containers shows consequences.

keesje · Thu Dec 28, 2017 2:00 am

Saw tthis picture fell away (thank you photobucket) so reposted.

keesje · Thu Apr 26, 2018 9:43 am

23. April 2018

Less Cargo Capacity for Boeing 797?

Another new aircraft type is planned to come onto the market. This time from Boeing who is busy developing their B797 model, an aircraft which is being designed to carry up to 270 passengers on short and/or medium haul sectors. The aircraft, which is planned to fly in six years from now, will surely be a hit, but is said to be facing a “cargo dilemma.”

https://www.cargoforwarder.eu/2018/04/23/less-cargo-capacity-for-boeing-797/

keesje · Sun Apr 29, 2018 8:30 am

This article question the fundamental cross section design of the proposed NMA/ 797. It argues the Asian demand is just to big to ignore and there are strong signals the those airlines are against a flat, reduced belly space 797 design.

https://www.google.nl/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-boeing-797-cargo-design-20180308-story,amp.html&ved=2ahUKEwim1Mn-0NfaAhXCPFAKHZY7BX0QFjADegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1ckBuoSaE3oClPWWtXJbUE&ampcf=1

It could become a topic too big to dismiss if the Asian market is larger than the US market. In the next decade Airbus could come up with something with significant better cargo capacity.

Stitch · Sun Apr 29, 2018 5:55 pm

keesje wrote:
It could become a topic too big to dismiss if the Asian market is larger than the US market. In the next decade Airbus could come up with something with significant better cargo capacity.

Not if they base it around the A321's fuselage it will not, since AKH is not going to cut the mustard capacity-wise and you cannot use pallets in the lower hold that I can find.

If cargo is critical to the success of this segment of the market, then I expect Boeing to dimension NMA's hold the same as the 767's. This will allow side-by-side LD2s offering 190% of the capacity of a single AKH and you also can use pallets (88x125" and 96x125").

parapente · Tue May 01, 2018 9:54 am

Boeing have clearly chosen aerodynamic efficiency (drag and weight) over optimal cargo capacity.Which obviously speaks volumes about their target market.They will have also worked out that no existing Airbus product can offer more than them in any case whether it be 797 Vs 320x or 797 Vs 330neo.
It may be a bit far fetched but I still wonder whether this fuse design will not be used at a later date as a basis for a NSA - rewinged and re engined (smaller) for a 200 and 250 pax (one class) 737 replacement.There would be advantages and disadvantages but would certainly offer great turnaround times.
Long thin (metal) aircaft tend to loose their weight advantage when over stretched due to structural strengthening .Its been shown many times.A 250 single aisle is 42 seat rows long (All economy)! Probably am wrong, but something Airbus may be considering since they put their 'plus' on hold.

frmrCapCadet · Wed May 02, 2018 3:57 pm

I have asked before, if you want to go a few thousand miles with lots of passengers and lots of freight wouldn't you buy a 330 or 787?

parapente · Wed May 02, 2018 4:58 pm

Yup capCadet imho you would.When you have a full load of pax and a full cargo hold the max ranges go right out of the window anyway and start falling to MOM distances (say 5.5knm as stated for the Boeing 797) very quickly indeed.Then on top of that there can be 'hot n high' to deal with.Also flexibility- to a certain extent you don't want an aircraft that is too limited in its mission profile.
That not to say there is not a MOM gap - there is,but as you say if it's a dense route for pax and cargo then yes a 788/9 or 338 becomes a mom by default.

Stitch · Wed May 02, 2018 5:09 pm

frmrCapCadet wrote:
I have asked before, if you want to go a few thousand miles with lots of passengers and lots of freight wouldn't you buy a 330 or 787?

Yes. An A330-800 or 787-9 will carry 50,000kg over 5000nm, but MoM is not aiming for that market. Think more 767-200ER (35,000kg to 5000nm) or 767-300ER (45,000kg to 4000nm).

keesje · Tue May 08, 2018 11:01 am

I think on many medium destinations, specially new ones, cargo can make or break the business case if load factors / revenues are still in an early stage. It's what made the A330-200 so successful on long haul in the previous decade. 250 Seats two class with healthy cargo capability.

If Asian airlines and European airlines want serious cargo capability, stakeholders will probably motivate Boeing to put the money where their mouth is.

http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2017-06-20-Boeing-Raises-Forecast-for-New-Airplane-Demand

Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45hesr

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Re: Container Capability MoM sized Aircraft, Extendable AKH, LD3-45

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net