Sponsor Message:
Aviation Technical / Operations Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Airborne Express 767-200: Loading Question  
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 507 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4996 times:

How does the loading of Airborne Express 767-200PC work?
The specific containers are loaded through the pax door?

Picture

In reference to the above picture, where does that lower deck access door come from? It does not exist on pax aircraft right?

Are ABX aircraft also used for pax operations?
Does anyone have a picture of the inside of the main deck?

Thank you for your help.

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAtlamt From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 241 posts, RR: 3
Reply 1, posted (8 years 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 4989 times:

I'm guessing they do bulk load the upper deck. I know that some of the former pax a/c they use have had a cargo door installed for the upper deck but not this one.

As for the lower access door. It is on all of the 767's I've seen. It is a bulk cargo door. For passenger operation's it is used for last minute bags and cargo that wasn't loaded onto pallets or into containers.

In the photo below you can see the bulk cargo door.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Harris




Fwd to MCO and Placard
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4973 times:

Thanks for the info.
I assumed the bulk door was on the right hand side of the aircraft, with the other lower deck doors


User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4961 times:

They have special containers called "C" containers that are slim enough to go thru the pax door. The containers have wheels on them and go up the ramp seen in the picture. The containers have a "groove" on them the fits into a restraint rail in the aircraft to secure them for flight loads. The upper deck and lower deck have the same system.

They are looking at retrofitting to a standard system with a main cargo door but it will be expensive.

The problem with the "C" container system is two-fold:
1. It is incompatible with everyone else's aircraft and ground handling infrastructure (including DHL where they have to have two systems)
2. Make the aircraft worthless to anyone else (difficulty in financing, selling)

Best regards,
Lotsamiles


User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4073 posts, RR: 33
Reply 4, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4945 times:

The RAF Tristars used to have a similar system. Containers on the main deck that loaded through the pax door.

User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4896 times:

ABX has had a history of loading aircraft via passenger boarding doors. The DC-8 and DC-9s were similar.

In this shot you can see the gantry/conveyor system which ABX employs.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Gregg Stansbery




From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJonathan-l From France, joined Mar 2002, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 4863 times:

Thanks for the answers

User currently offlineMemphis From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 143 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4779 times:

I prefer having the bulk door on the left side of the A/C, like in the pics of the 767, the DC-10/MD-11 have the door on the left side aswell. It makes simultaneous loading/un-loading of the aft cargo compartment and the bulk area much easier with less conjestion, IMOP.

just my 2 cents.



nocturnal
User currently offlineLHRBFSTrident From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 658 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4648 times:

Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 3):
The problem with the "C" container system is two-fold:
1. It is incompatible with everyone else's aircraft and ground handling infrastructure (including DHL where they have to have two systems)
2. Make the aircraft worthless to anyone else (difficulty in financing, selling)

There was a Flight International article several years ago that discussed the unusual loading arrangements for ABX's aircraft.

Apparently the decision to use the pax doors on DC-9s and 767s for main deck loading was so that the aircraft would retain resale value as either a pax aircraft or a cargo aircraft in the event that ABX changed its fleet composition.

The 767 a/c retain their pax windows for the same reason.

I guess the value of the aircraft in the fleet can be listed on their financial statement as an asset based on the value of either a pax aircraft or a cargo aircraft, whichever is more beneficial to the beancounters depending on the current market for either type of a/c.

Apparently the "C" container system components can be uninstalled if necessary.


User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2564 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 4571 times:

If I remember correctly, that same article made mention of the fact that by using the C container system Airborne can get newly acquired aircraft into service more quickly. Basically they beef up the floor and install the restraint bars but don't have to bother with installing a cargo door on a PAX converted AC. That saves a lot of time and some money right there.


"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 4554 times:

Quoting LHRBFSTrident (Reply 8):
Apparently the "C" container system components can be uninstalled if necessary.

I understand that the aircraft have been modified so much just to put in the "C" system that they cannot be put back into passenger service without a very expensive, cost prohibitive re-modification. I have heard from some folks in the aviation finance community who say that the ABX Air "C" container aircraft are only worth their part out value outside the ABX Air operation.

Quoting 57AZ (Reply 9):
If I remember correctly, that same article made mention of the fact that by using the C container system Airborne can get newly acquired aircraft into service more quickly. Basically they beef up the floor and install the restraint bars but don't have to bother with installing a cargo door on a PAX converted AC. That saves a lot of time and some money right there.

I think this article was putting a positive spin on things. ABX Air has switched to traditional freighters now and my understanding is that they will not add to the "C" container fleet. They are studying the costs of switching over the entire system to use standard pallets and containers that will interline with the other DHL fleet and infrastructure.

Here's another good reason to switch over, when ABX Air freighters are not being used for DHL they can fly for other carriers (several of the newer, standard 767's do this). The "C" container fleet cannot do this.

I think it is just an example of a good idea at the time that no longer meets the needs of the current situation.

Regards,
Lotsamiles


User currently onlineA342 From Germany, joined Jul 2005, 4722 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4528 times:

As I can see, with these containers, it isn't possible to make use of the aircraft's full interior height, right ?


Exceptions confirm the rule.
User currently onlineStarlionblue From Greenland, joined Feb 2004, 17190 posts, RR: 66
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4526 times:

Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 4):
The RAF Tristars used to have a similar system. Containers on the main deck that loaded through the pax door.

Yeah but isn't the main deck mainly for seats? I mean these are mainly tankers with the bladders in the lower deck right?



"There are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots."
User currently offlineLotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4510 times:

Quoting A342 (Reply 11):
As I can see, with these containers, it isn't possible to make use of the aircraft's full interior height, right ?

Another good point on why the "C" containers are not the best way to go.

Regards,
Lotsamiles


User currently offline57AZ From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2564 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4441 times:

Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 10):
They are studying the costs of switching over the entire system to use standard pallets and containers that will interline with the other DHL fleet and infrastructure.

I would expect that if they do eventually decide to make the change, it will gradually be phased in-probably as each airframe is scheduled for heavy maintenance to minimize unnecessary downtime.



"When a man runs on railroads over half of his lifetime he is fit for nothing else-and at times he don't know that."
User currently offlineTristarSteve From Sweden, joined Nov 2005, 4073 posts, RR: 33
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 days ago) and read 4421 times:

Quoting Starlionblue (Reply 12):
Quoting TristarSteve (Reply 4):
The RAF Tristars used to have a similar system. Containers on the main deck that loaded through the pax door.

Yeah but isn't the main deck mainly for seats? I mean these are mainly tankers with the bladders in the lower deck right?

The one and only I have been on had pax seats back to the Nbr2 doors, and containers back from there.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Airborne Express 767-200: Loading Question
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Tech/Ops related posts only!
  • Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
767 200 Into A 400 Flight Deck? posted Tue Jan 31 2006 09:42:43 by JumboJim747
Any 767-200 With RR Engines? posted Wed Nov 23 2005 23:07:58 by Socal
Boeing 767 Cockpit Button Question posted Tue Nov 1 2005 10:14:26 by Rendezvous
Boeing 767-200 Freighter? posted Tue Nov 30 2004 01:34:20 by Xenon
767 Thrust Reverser Question posted Tue Mar 23 2004 09:34:47 by Hardkor
Delta 767-200, 777-200 posted Tue Feb 24 2004 18:41:04 by Delta07
B-757-200 Weight Question posted Sat May 31 2003 16:42:35 by MxCtrlr
767-400 APU Question posted Fri Dec 6 2002 18:39:25 by NRA-3B
Delta 767-200 posted Wed Dec 12 2001 01:57:17 by PercussionMn7
CO 757-200 V. 767-200 posted Wed May 23 2001 23:27:47 by Braniff747

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format