A topic for debate which has been close to my professional involvement with aviation.

There currently exists a situation, whereby most ramp workers of the world are - sooner or later - liable to suffer from back, shoulder, neck and elbow injuries caused by their work. The worst culprit are loose loaded aircraft, where ramp workers are forced into disadvantageous bodily positions when the load and unload bulk aircraft. At the same time, the increasing number of LCC airlines which employ non-ULD carrying aircraft types are working to exacerbate this situation.

At the airport I've been working out of, great technological strives has been made to ensure, the burden on the ramp workers are minimised as much as possible, e.g. through the employment of ramp snakes and rear lifters, but the final / first piece of a luggages journey in the hold still involves manual handling. If you want to try it for yourself, sit on your knees with your back bent forward and lift crates of beer from your left to your right side, stacking them up to a height of around 1 meter. Even if you're in really good shape and lift a lot of weights in the gym, I can assure you that you'll feel backpain very, very quickly. This is the daily life of a ramp worker, and its costly both to them and to society, once they are 'burned out' and have to go on disability leave.

There have been a lot of suggestions as to how this problem may be addressed, ranging from limiting the amount of turns a ramp worker can do per shift, to limiting the number of years a ramp worker should be employed. Some of the problems with those suggestions are, that they pass the cost of the solutions on to the handling agent - not the airline.

This leads us to look for a solution which addresses the root cause of the problem, namely manual handling in lower-deck aircraft compartments. One obvious solution to that, would be to mandate all aircraft above a certain size, or aircraft fleets above a certain size, must be containerised. Let's keep in mind, there's nothing technically stopping e.g. Boeing from making the 737 containerised; it's all about cost and nothing else. Years ago DHL pioneered turning a bulk- into a containerised compartment on the B757. Sadly it came to naught, as the handling agents baulked at having to invest heavily in machinery to handle these flights - it simply made no economical sense to purchase the equipment for a single flight 5 times a week. If, however, entire fleets are forced into containerisation the picture is very much different, as economics of scale kicks in. Furthermore, generally speaking a ULD carrying aircraft will require less manpower, than a loose loaded ditto of the same size.

What are your thoughts on this?

ANA asked Boeing to offer containerize capability for 737MAX a few years back I think.
But I don't think anything actually come out of that?

No thanks on limiting the number of years ..
You should worry about yourself and leave the ramp workers alone ... besides someone still has to load and push those containers around . Ramo work is not for everyone

The carpet system in the 737 and a320 work very well one person can do it ..so the work gets rotated
Only problem is when it breaks down ..

COSPN wrote:

No thanks on limiting the number of years ..
You should worry about yourself and leave the ramp workers alone ... besides someone still has to load and push those containers around . Ramo work is not for everyone

The carpet system in the 737 and a320 work very well one person can do it ..so the work gets rotated
Only problem is when it breaks down ..

Thank you for your input. I'm afraid, if that's the right word, that leaving ramp workers alone is the exact opposite of my job description. As a matter of fact, it's both legally and contractually my job to look out for these guys, even when they don't want me to.

In the legislation we work under, it's extremely expensive to have an employee go off sick on a work related injury. To wit, we're paying a full salary for the first 6 months of their sick leave. But the economical side of things is not really my main concern, rather it's witnessing the effect of working long term on the ramp - and the worst culprit when it comes to injuries, is handling luggage and freight in the lower-deck on lose loaded aircraft.

As for loading and un-loading of ULDs, there are tools available for that. At the airport I'm at, we're using something called a Lift-all, which was originally developed in AMS. Now the guys are not particularly fond of using it, as it's human nature to chose the path of least resistance, and loading by hand can be done quicker. But it does come with some rather adverse effects, at least long term. Furthermore, if our guys are 'caught' by a HSE inspection not using the tools available to them, we as the company will be hauled over the coals - not the employee.

As for sliding carpets or bins, yes they alleviate some of the work. But not all airlines have them, cheapskates as many of them are, and they still don't help when you have to lift a suitcase up to the second or third level when you're packing them in.

B777LRF wrote:

COSPN wrote:

No thanks on limiting the number of years ..
You should worry about yourself and leave the ramp workers alone ... besides someone still has to load and push those containers around . Ramo work is not for everyone

The carpet system in the 737 and a320 work very well one person can do it ..so the work gets rotated
Only problem is when it breaks down ..

Thank you for your input. I'm afraid, if that's the right word, that leaving ramp workers alone is the exact opposite of my job description. As a matter of fact, it's both legally and contractually my job to look out for these guys, even when they don't want me to.

In the legislation we work under, it's extremely expensive to have an employee go off sick on a work related injury. To wit, we're paying a full salary for the first 6 months of their sick leave. But the economical side of things is not really my main concern, rather it's witnessing the effect of working long term on the ramp - and the worst culprit when it comes to injuries, is handling luggage and freight in the lower-deck on lose loaded aircraft.

As for loading and un-loading of ULDs, there are tools available for that. At the airport I'm at, we're using something called a Lift-all, which was originally developed in AMS. Now the guys are not particularly fond of using it, as it's human nature to chose the path of least resistance, and loading by hand can be done quicker. But it does come with some rather adverse effects, at least long term. Furthermore, if our guys are 'caught' by a HSE inspection not using the tools available to them, we as the company will be hauled over the coals - not the employee.

As for sliding carpets or bins, yes they alleviate some of the work. But not all airlines have them, cheapskates as many of them are, and they still don't help when you have to lift a suitcase up to the second or third level when you're packing them in.

So the best alternative out there seems to be full of flaws and legal challenges in itself. This seems like a case of "if it aint broke, dont fix it." In both posts you show why the solution is expensive/ non-economic and acknowledge the airlines are cost conscience.

The market will dictate when it makes sense to change, not some legislation. How many hundreds of container capable A320s are in the sky over just the US at this moment that are loaded by hand?

There is inherent risk in just about every job, and as mentioned above, ramp work is not for everyone.

why not design and implement an exoframe that pnumatically holds the worker and alleviates the weight of the bags.

Lowering the bag weight from 32k to 23k a few years back was very helpful

What does ULD mean?

MartijnNL wrote:

What does ULD mean?

ULD = Unit Load Device. Commonly know as containers and pallets or, if you're American, cans and cookie sheets.

airzona11 wrote:

So the best alternative out there seems to be full of flaws and legal challenges in itself. This seems like a case of "if it aint broke, dont fix it." In both posts you show why the solution is expensive/ non-economic and acknowledge the airlines are cost conscience.

The market will dictate when it makes sense to change, not some legislation. How many hundreds of container capable A320s are in the sky over just the US at this moment that are loaded by hand?

There is inherent risk in just about every job, and as mentioned above, ramp work is not for everyone.

I'm not quite sure I agree with that. Throughout industrial history, employers more often than not have had to be forced into action, to improve the conditions of workers. This is really no different; it's a fact that loose loaded aircraft wrecks backs, shoulders, elbows and knees. If we leave it to 'the market', when 'the market' does not bear the social and economic consequences of their decisions, is not going to change anything. If you're arguing it ain't broke then, based on the evidence I see every day, I'll respectfully have to disagree.

Yes, there are economic challenges to be overcome. But ask yourself this: What's more important, you being able to buy a USD 20 ticket to fly fra London to Berlin, or the health and safety of the guys tasked with loading your flight? If the airlines are forced to containerise their fleets, whenever possible, the cost of that will be passed on to the travelling public. Now that may well mean the unhinged growth of LCC airlines might be curbed for a while, but the industry is well accustomed to an ever changing playing field, and has always managed to adapt and overcome.

I do appreciate every job has its risk, but is it not our obligation to ensure those risks are mitigated to the furthest extent possible? I mean, if it wasn't for legislation, workers wouldn't be wearing safety shoes, hi-viz vests, gloves and and other PPE.

I understand Qantas is looking at A320s to replace 737s for the very issues outlined in the OP. The cost is not only of having people off work, it is a known hazard where an equipment change can prevent injury.

There is a large differance in the injury rate between Qantas that uses 737s and Jetstar that uses A320s.

This needs to go even further so the loading and unloading of the ULD contents is done without injury.

B777LRF wrote:

airzona11 wrote:

So the best alternative out there seems to be full of flaws and legal challenges in itself. This seems like a case of "if it aint broke, dont fix it." In both posts you show why the solution is expensive/ non-economic and acknowledge the airlines are cost conscience.

The market will dictate when it makes sense to change, not some legislation. How many hundreds of container capable A320s are in the sky over just the US at this moment that are loaded by hand?

There is inherent risk in just about every job, and as mentioned above, ramp work is not for everyone.

I'm not quite sure I agree with that. Throughout industrial history, employers more often than not have had to be forced into action, to improve the conditions of workers. This is really no different; it's a fact that loose loaded aircraft wrecks backs, shoulders, elbows and knees. If we leave it to 'the market', when 'the market' does not bear the social and economic consequences of their decisions, is not going to change anything. If you're arguing it ain't broke then, based on the evidence I see every day, I'll respectfully have to disagree.

Yes, there are economic challenges to be overcome. But ask yourself this: What's more important, you being able to buy a USD 20 ticket to fly fra London to Berlin, or the health and safety of the guys tasked with loading your flight? If the airlines are forced to containerise their fleets, whenever possible, the cost of that will be passed on to the travelling public. Now that may well mean the unhinged growth of LCC airlines might be curbed for a while, but the industry is well accustomed to an ever changing playing field, and has always managed to adapt and overcome.

I do appreciate every job has its risk, but is it not our obligation to ensure those risks are mitigated to the furthest extent possible? I mean, if it wasn't for legislation, workers wouldn't be wearing safety shoes, hi-viz vests, gloves and and other PPE.

On the flip side, safety shoes, hi viz vests, gloves, etc all of those reduce the amount of time spent on sick leave / workers comp, so there is very much a business incentive for employers to have employees wear them.

If insurance companies saw that AA had the ability to eliminate all of the pain and suffering caused from manual loading their 400+ Airbus narrow bodies, they would certainly tell AA and all the other airlines, their job is to mitigate risk. If the problem were as systemic as you describe, it would be in use.

Taking your examples of "unhinged growth of LCCs" and "$20 LON-BER flights"... legislation should absolutely not inhibit airlines ability to offer and consumers ability to purchase such a product, by imposing required taxes. Taking consumers surplus or airline profit, or both for a few thousand people that may or may not need the safety net? And LCCs have proven they are far better at adapting to changes in the market (your tax/fee would be a market change) vs Legacies. Where do you draw the line? Well the tug drivers are outside, so they now need air conditioned / heated cabins. Same with the folks that drive the baggage carts. Might as well mandate $10 more dollars for the folks loading checked bags onto the belts at check-in.

No one wants to see people suffer. People shouldn't harm their lives to earn a paycheck. I think if suffering were occurring, there would be job vacancies and employees picketing. It is happening with airlines all over the world right now. Just so happens to be those are who I would consider the white collar (cabin crew/pilots) vs blue collar (below the wing). A group that has copious amounts of legislation mandated rules and restrictions. Slippery slope.

c933103 wrote:

ANA asked Boeing to offer containerize capability for 737MAX a few years back I think. But I don't think anything actually come out of that?

Well the 707 and 727 did have ULD capability (it's in the ACAP and there are pictures of cans being loaded/off-loaded from 727s in the database), but I am guessing there is some loss of hold volume when using them which is why they were eventually phased out on those frames and never made it to the 737 (or if they ever were used, were subsequently discarded in favor of bulk-loading). For example, the A321-200ULR may need to use bulk loading in some situations in order to get all the passenger bags in due to the space the ACTs take, reducing the space available for LD3-45s holding baggage.

airzona11 wrote:

On the flip side, safety shoes, hi viz vests, gloves, etc all of those reduce the amount of time spent on sick leave / workers comp, so there is very much a business incentive for employers to have employees wear them.

If insurance companies saw that AA had the ability to eliminate all of the pain and suffering caused from manual loading their 400+ Airbus narrow bodies, they would certainly tell AA and all the other airlines, their job is to mitigate risk. If the problem were as systemic as you describe, it would be in use.

Taking your examples of "unhinged growth of LCCs" and "$20 LON-BER flights"... legislation should absolutely not inhibit airlines ability to offer and consumers ability to purchase such a product, by imposing required taxes. Taking consumers surplus or airline profit, or both for a few thousand people that may or may not need the safety net? And LCCs have proven they are far better at adapting to changes in the market (your tax/fee would be a market change) vs Legacies. Where do you draw the line? Well the tug drivers are outside, so they now need air conditioned / heated cabins. Same with the folks that drive the baggage carts. Might as well mandate $10 more dollars for the folks loading checked bags onto the belts at check-in.

No one wants to see people suffer. People shouldn't harm their lives to earn a paycheck. I think if suffering were occurring, there would be job vacancies and employees picketing. It is happening with airlines all over the world right now. Just so happens to be those are who I would consider the white collar (cabin crew/pilots) vs blue collar (below the wing). A group that has copious amounts of legislation mandated rules and restrictions. Slippery slope.

Thanks for joining the conversation.

I think the problem with your premise that airlines would be pressed by their insurance companies is, it's not the same company flying the aircraft who handle them on the ground. By a very large margin, ground handling is outsourced or, if kept 'in house', run by a different legal entity e.g. SAS Ground Handling. As for the ground handlers, they include the cost of sickness leave in their bids and projections. Not always fully in tune with legal and labour law realities when they move into new markets. This is what I meant earlier, when saying the airlines have little financial incentive to improve conditions in the holds; the social and economic consequences are not theirs to own.

I fully agree with you there should be full and free competition, but if everyone is faced with the same set of regulations - and aviation is an exceedingly regulated industry - there are no economic advantages or disadvantages; if you want to play, your aircraft above a certain size will be ULD carrying or there's no field for you to play on. Now if this ends up costing airline passengers a fraction more, that is - in my opinion - a fair trade for the physical well-being of hundreds of thousands of ramp employees around the world.

I am not proposing a tax to fund this endeavour; I'm advocating a common set of rules dictating all aircraft with e.g. 99 seats or more shall be containerised. It's then up to the manufacturers, conversion companies and airlines to figure out how to do it, and it will be the airlines bearing the cost. Which, at the end of the day, will obviously result in higher ticket prices. But if the competition in aviation over the last 10 years has thought us anything, it is that prices will start going down again sooner rather than later, ending up in a fractional rise in ticket prices.

The "Magic Carpet" loading system on the 737 (made by Scandinavian "Telair") is a good solution for airlines that operate many quick-turn (30-40 minute) flights per day with lower payload restrictions. Think short-hauls. Unfortunately this system adds additional weight that is often a problem for operators that do primarily 4+ hour flights with their 737s. An alternative that's looks pretty good is the "ramp-snake" loader. Essentially part of the baggage loading ramp can be maneuvered into the belly and the bags sent right from the ramp into the bin close to where the loader is working. It allows only 2-3 guys to load/unload the aircraft more easily while reducing the amount of back and forth motion associated with moving the bags to/from the loading door area.

Sliding Carpet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTfrbL0UEcY
Ramp Snake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdAsGtB6Xjk

JAGflyer wrote:

The "Magic Carpet" loading system on the 737 (made by Scandinavian "Telair") is a good solution for airlines that operate many quick-turn (30-40 minute) flights per day with lower payload restrictions. Think short-hauls. Unfortunately this system adds additional weight that is often a problem for operators that do primarily 4+ hour flights with their 737s. An alternative that's looks pretty good is the "ramp-snake" loader. Essentially part of the baggage loading ramp can be maneuvered into the belly and the bags sent right from the ramp into the bin close to where the loader is working. It allows only 2-3 guys to load/unload the aircraft more easily while reducing the amount of back and forth motion associated with moving the bags to/from the loading door area.

Sliding Carpet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTfrbL0UEcY
Ramp Snake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdAsGtB6Xjk

The biggest strain on loaders backs, is when the bag comes off the ramp snake and has to be lifted into position. You're on your knees, stretching and lifting at the same time - one of the worst positions you can work in.

Besides, the FMC ramp snake is fraught with issues. The better product, by a long way, is the Powerstow system. But it still leaves the problem of having to lift the bags for final positioning.

Powerstow: http://www.powerstow.com

They claim a 50% reduction in back injuries, which is of course great. But it doesn't address the last 50%, which a ULD solution would.

We employ electric TLD belt-loaders with Power-stow fronts. They come at around 150K Euro each, roughly half of which is for the Power-stow.

B777LRF wrote:

JAGflyer wrote:

The "Magic Carpet" loading system on the 737 (made by Scandinavian "Telair") is a good solution for airlines that operate many quick-turn (30-40 minute) flights per day with lower payload restrictions. Think short-hauls. Unfortunately this system adds additional weight that is often a problem for operators that do primarily 4+ hour flights with their 737s. An alternative that's looks pretty good is the "ramp-snake" loader. Essentially part of the baggage loading ramp can be maneuvered into the belly and the bags sent right from the ramp into the bin close to where the loader is working. It allows only 2-3 guys to load/unload the aircraft more easily while reducing the amount of back and forth motion associated with moving the bags to/from the loading door area.

Sliding Carpet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTfrbL0UEcY
Ramp Snake: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdAsGtB6Xjk

The biggest strain on loaders backs, is when the bag comes off the ramp snake and has to be lifted into position. You're on your knees, stretching and lifting at the same time - one of the worst positions you can work in.

Besides, the FMC ramp snake is fraught with issues. The better product, by a long way, is the Powerstow system. But it still leaves the problem of having to lift the bags for final positioning.

Powerstow: http://www.powerstow.com

They claim a 50% reduction in back injuries, which is of course great. But it doesn't address the last 50%, which a ULD solution would.

We employ electric TLD belt-loaders with Power-stow fronts. They come at around 150K Euro each, roughly half of which is for the Power-stow.

ULDs are not reducing injuries 100%.

Where I work every effort is made to reduce lifting, the h&s laws are pretty clear on it here in the UK and its not only a favourite target for civil actions against companies but also from a criminal perspective. I'm surprised there is as much bulk loading going on as there is, is bulk loading on the way out? I think it will take a company director being found to be criminally responsible and the willies will be put in to the others and a change made.

Fred

It seems to be forgotten that no ULD is loaded without someone lifting the bags into it.

You take your pick. Either do the lifting in the bagroom, or in the airplane.

FGITD wrote:

It seems to be forgotten that no ULD is loaded without someone lifting the bags into it.

You take your pick. Either do the lifting in the bagroom, or in the airplane.

There are technical solutions available, which negates the need to do any lifting in a baggage sorting area.

http://www.airporthandlingsolutions.com ... -handling/

However, even without lift-all or other equipment, manual handling in the baggage area is still several orders of magnitude less stressful on the body, for the sole reason you're not working in a crouched position.

In a local ship yard they are experimenting with a powered exoskeleton. More amazing to me they actually made it in a machine shop rather than ordering one. It enables a person to lift and work with three times the load they could otherwise safely use. A specific use is overhead grinders, as well as providing most of the lift, it also takes most of the jarring out of the work. Something like this will be common in the workforce - nurses aids moving patients and any job including lifting particularly at uncomfortable situations.