I know some airlines like EK exlusively use wide-bodies with LD3 containers. Others like the US3 or EU3 use mostly narrowbody and widebodies. What is faster in baggage loading, bulk loading or container loading? Is it true that when loading by container I assume transit bags go into certain containers and final destination bags on the next leg go into other containers as I would think its more effcient.

Cans are faster at the aircraft itself as they can be pre-loaded with "early" luggage and ready to go. But I don't know if cans save time overall.

All (?) widebodies also have a bulk cargo that is hand loaded and does not use cans. This adds flexibility for last-minute bags, for example.

Airlines will look at all the factors. For example, bulk-loaded baggage comes with heavier occupational health rules - lifting all this baggage in a constricted space...

I would think searching for a particular bag(s) to be offloaded in case the pax is a no-show at the gate would be easier if LD3 containers were used. They will know which specific container holds the bag(s).

889091 wrote:

I would think searching for a particular bag(s) to be offloaded in case the pax is a no-show at the gate would be easier if LD3 containers were used. They will know which specific container holds the bag(s).

It's easier on a widebody provided the right bag is recorded in the right can.

At an airline I was at we had a pax decide not to fly at the last minute. It was my job to make sure the right bag was taken off and in this case it wasn't. The one the ramp did remove was in the rear hold of the 77W, but after I called out they pulled the wrong one the station director wanted to check EVERY can by hand. Thankfully the correct bag was in the first can they decided to check in the forward hold. Flight still left pretty late.

PPBM is no joke and I didn't envy the rampers when they had to check for a narrowbody, but as long as the bags and cans were properly recorded, searching a narrowbody was a lot easier although still has its own challenges.

Starlionblue wrote:

Cans are faster at the aircraft itself as they can be pre-loaded with "early" luggage and ready to go. But I don't know if cans save time overall.

All (?) widebodies also have a bulk cargo that is hand loaded and does not use cans. This adds flexibility for last-minute bags, for example.

Always thought it ironic the ‘Bulk cargo’ compartment is far smaller than the main cargo hold which accommodates far ‘Bulkier’ containers

Max Q wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Cans are faster at the aircraft itself as they can be pre-loaded with "early" luggage and ready to go. But I don't know if cans save time overall.

All (?) widebodies also have a bulk cargo that is hand loaded and does not use cans. This adds flexibility for last-minute bags, for example.

Always thought it ironic the ‘Bulk cargo’ compartment is far smaller than the main cargo hold which accommodates far ‘Bulkier’ containers

Ha. Never thought of that.

But I suppose "bulk" has many definitions.

cargo in an unpackaged mass

TWA772LR wrote:

889091 wrote:

I would think searching for a particular bag(s) to be offloaded in case the pax is a no-show at the gate would be easier if LD3 containers were used. They will know which specific container holds the bag(s).

It's easier on a widebody provided the right bag is recorded in the right can.

At an airline I was at we had a pax decide not to fly at the last minute. It was my job to make sure the right bag was taken off and in this case it wasn't. The one the ramp did remove was in the rear hold of the 77W, but after I called out they pulled the wrong one the station director wanted to check EVERY can by hand. Thankfully the correct bag was in the first can they decided to check in the forward hold. Flight still left pretty late.

PPBM is no joke and I didn't envy the rampers when they had to check for a narrowbody, but as long as the bags and cans were properly recorded, searching a narrowbody was a lot easier although still has its own challenges.

I’ve lived that nightmare too. Pax manager called down for an offload, the guys took off the “correct” can and couldn’t find the bag but found one that wasn’t scanned onto the flight. I consulted with my boss…Cue offloading the entire plane. Credit where it’s due though, the captain himself came down and sifted through some bags. Finally found it, but in a place it had no business being.

To answer the offload question though…problem with AKEs is you can’t reach them all. So sure, you might know exactly what can the bag is in, but when that was the first of 16 loaded…you’re still offloading at least 7 or 8, and then you still have to sort through by hand and find the right bag. And inevitably the offload bag was the first one loaded in the can.

On a bulk loaded aircraft I’ve seen rampers basically tunnel their way Through to grab an offload.

How are the cans loaded? By that, I am asking: are they just smaller versions of a cargo hold where the bags are stacked as they fit? Or, are there little shelves, or sub-compartments with mesh nets or some such across them?

WesternDC6B wrote:

How are the cans loaded? By that, I am asking: are they just smaller versions of a cargo hold where the bags are stacked as they fit? Or, are there little shelves, or sub-compartments with mesh nets or some such across them?

Basically a smaller hold. Usually a metal base/structure with a fiberglass frame. Depending on the size of the container (most common are AKEs) they can hold a different number of bags. AKEs if stacked properly can hold 40-50 bags. Then they’re closed up with some kind of enclosed door, usually a plastic curtain type with some manner of fastening it to the sides and bottom.

The big difference I see in bulk vs cans is in manpower. At YYC, 3-4 guys can do the front and back of a can-loaded 321 in about the same time as 6-7 guys on a 737.

WesternDC6B wrote:

How are the cans loaded? By that, I am asking: are they just smaller versions of a cargo hold where the bags are stacked as they fit? Or, are there little shelves, or sub-compartments with mesh nets or some such across them?

Bulk hold of an A330 here. https://youtu.be/nQbO0UbhK9M

Very boring instructional video on main holds of A330. https://youtu.be/PuMo_rOp7k0

Acey wrote:

The big difference I see in bulk vs cans is in manpower. At YYC, 3-4 guys can do the front and back of a can-loaded 321 in about the same time as 6-7 guys on a 737.

6-7 people loading a 737 seems like overkill. US airlines I'm familiar with typically use 3-4 ramp workers per gate working a turn on both 737 and 320/321's.

Acey wrote:

The big difference I see in bulk vs cans is in manpower. At YYC, 3-4 guys can do the front and back of a can-loaded 321 in about the same time as 6-7 guys on a 737.

Also fewer injuries when loaded by containers.

shamrock137 wrote:

Acey wrote:

The big difference I see in bulk vs cans is in manpower. At YYC, 3-4 guys can do the front and back of a can-loaded 321 in about the same time as 6-7 guys on a 737.

6-7 people loading a 737 seems like overkill. US airlines I'm familiar with typically use 3-4 ramp workers per gate working a turn on both 737 and 320/321's.

The other airlines here operating 737 use that same 3-4 ramp crew... but for AC to match the speed they achieve with their can-loaded A320, that is the crew required, which answers the thread title I suppose. It's nearly twice as fast.

There are no can-loaded 320 in the US (to my knowledge) so there's less in terms of comparison data.

zeke wrote:

Also fewer injuries when loaded by containers.

Could you provide a reference. I think it would be interesting to see the stats re: injuries sustained bulk load vs. container load. Thanks.

e38

e38 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Also fewer injuries when loaded by containers.

Could you provide a reference. I think it would be interesting to see the stats re: injuries sustained bulk load vs. container load. Thanks.

e38

Container loading does not require anyone to be bent over inside a hold lifting bags.


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... PREVENTION

zeke wrote:

e38 wrote:

zeke wrote:

Also fewer injuries when loaded by containers.

Could you provide a reference. I think it would be interesting to see the stats re: injuries sustained bulk load vs. container load. Thanks.

e38

Container loading does not require anyone to be bent over inside a hold lifting bags.


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... PREVENTION

I’d be curious to read more, since it’s not as if AKEs don’t require lifting the bags at all. Instead of being bent over it requires more lifting UP into the cans

FGITD wrote:

zeke wrote:

e38 wrote:

Could you provide a reference. I think it would be interesting to see the stats re: injuries sustained bulk load vs. container load. Thanks.

e38

Container loading does not require anyone to be bent over inside a hold lifting bags.


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... PREVENTION

I’d be curious to read more, since it’s not as if AKEs don’t require lifting the bags at all. Instead of being bent over it requires more lifting UP into the cans

Depending on the style of baggage cart used, bulk loading requires the same amount of lifting in the bag room to get the bag in the cart, then heavy lifting by the guy at the bottom putting it on the beltloader, then heavy lifting for the guy in the plane stacking it.

The difference is that lifting heavy bags in the bagroom allows you to have proper lifting form and be far less susceptible to repetitive strain injuries than the awkward lifting in the confined space of the airplane.

I have no "studies" to back this up, but many years ago I worked on the ramp and this is my experience.

Acey wrote:

FGITD wrote:

zeke wrote:

Container loading does not require anyone to be bent over inside a hold lifting bags.


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... PREVENTION

I’d be curious to read more, since it’s not as if AKEs don’t require lifting the bags at all. Instead of being bent over it requires more lifting UP into the cans

Depending on the style of baggage cart used, bulk loading requires the same amount of lifting in the bag room to get the bag in the cart, then heavy lifting by the guy at the bottom putting it on the beltloader, then heavy lifting for the guy in the plane stacking it.

The difference is that lifting heavy bags in the bagroom allows you to have proper lifting form and be far less susceptible to repetitive strain injuries than the awkward lifting in the confined space of the airplane.

I have no "studies" to back this up, but many years ago I worked on the ramp and this is my experience.

Very good point, instead of one loading area there’s multiple. I think I was more focusing on the bent over loading in the bins part. Thankfully I have minimal experience on narrow bodies, and the ones I have worked were containerized.

Acey wrote:

The big difference I see in bulk vs cans is in manpower. At YYC, 3-4 guys can do the front and back of a can-loaded 321 in about the same time as 6-7 guys on a 737.

Must be nice. I remember working a DC-9 all by myself more times than I can count. That includes unloading bags at the carousel before loading the outbound cargo.

A bit on the side of the topic, but I was surprised to see that TS' A321 ceo are bulk loaded.

Aircellist wrote:

A bit on the side of the topic, but I was surprised to see that TS' A321 ceo are bulk loaded.

AC appears to be the wildcard in North America with can loading of the 320 family. I'm not aware of anyone else that does.

Starlionblue wrote:

Very boring instructional video on main holds of A330. https://youtu.be/PuMo_rOp7k0

96x125in containers? I didn't know they existed. I thought two LD3 were used side by side. What airlines use these mega containers?

ro1960 wrote:

Starlionblue wrote:

Very boring instructional video on main holds of A330. https://youtu.be/PuMo_rOp7k0

96x125in containers? I didn't know they existed. I thought two LD3 were used side by side. What airlines use these mega containers?

I believe the "double LD3" is an LD6. I've seen them sometimes but not sure who uses them.

Acey wrote:

shamrock137 wrote:

Acey wrote:

The big difference I see in bulk vs cans is in manpower. At YYC, 3-4 guys can do the front and back of a can-loaded 321 in about the same time as 6-7 guys on a 737.

6-7 people loading a 737 seems like overkill. US airlines I'm familiar with typically use 3-4 ramp workers per gate working a turn on both 737 and 320/321's.

The other airlines here operating 737 use that same 3-4 ramp crew... but for AC to match the speed they achieve with their can-loaded A320, that is the crew required, which answers the thread title I suppose. It's nearly twice as fast.

There are no can-loaded 320 in the US (to my knowledge) so there's less in terms of comparison data.

The airline with the most direct information would be BA, as they historically bulk load A320s at LGW and container load at LHR

Acey wrote:

There are no can-loaded 320 in the US (to my knowledge) so there's less in terms of comparison data.

It's funny, early in the Heavy Maintenance portion of my career, about 7 years ago, I was working one of my airline's older aircraft. The MRO came to me asking about something (some busted cannon plug or bracket or wire... can't remember) in the cargo pit so I started looking through the IPC, SRM, Wiring Manual, etc., for the life of me I couldn't find any reference to this broken thing.

Not knowing which particular Engineering crew within the airline would know about it, I reached out to all except powerplant engineering. I got a response back from an Interior Engineer who I have worked with for many years now, I highly regard any of his knowledge, and he said..."you've found the golden ticket, Charlie!" It turns out that the aircraft was being built for another airline and the cargo pits were having the ULD system installed when the plane was re-assigned by Airbus to my airline (bulk loading only) but the items already installed were never removed before delivery to us! Basically, we had written permission from Airbus to leave damage to anything associated with the ULD system that had been installed in an as-is state considering it was an incomplete and inactive system where everything was terminated.

Long story short, while no US-based carrier has ULD systems (that I know of) on their 320 fleets, there are still some planes roaming around that were provisioned for it! LOL!

Thought you might get a kick out of that.

I would say it depends on the bag smashers. I have seen both ways take forever depending on the level of motivation.