A key challenge for the ground handling sector is the fact that it is by its nature, still very archaic, says Patrick Ee, senior manager cargo services centre and ULD management at Singapore Airlines Cargo. “Th e processes in place, the technology, the manpower intensity is still the same – there has been no real technological breakthrough and things are still done in the same way as they have in the past,” he said.
“I think the challenge is really for the industry to collaborate – and when I say collaborate I mean the ground handler, airline, as well as agent, shipper and also airport authorities – to come up with something to help us achieve a breakthrough and it’s not going to be easy,” Ee said. Th is is in part because of how regulated the industry, “but nonetheless we must try,” he urges.
SIA Cargo is also looking at how technology can help bring added efficiencies, including autonomous (driverless) vehicles to help improve the cargo acceptance processes, as well as looking at whether technology can aid the cargo build-up processes.
“We realise there is a need for change and especially for us, because Changi Airport Terminal 5 is coming up in about 10 years’ time and we want it to be stateof- the-art in terms of both passenger handling, as well as cargo handling.
“We are actively looking at all new technologies and to say there is light at the end of the tunnel is pretty far fetched, but the journey has to start,” Ee said.
Dwell time
Dwell time is another crucial issue, particularly in light of IATA’s push to strip out 48 hours from the end-to-end supply chain. For LuxairCARGO’s VP of business development, Jean-Marc Reynaerts, the responsibility of reducing dwell time doesn’t rest with ground handlers.
For Reynaerts It’s two important parties who have ultimate control over dwell times at airports – the carrier and the forwarder. “Just make your booking on time, deliver your cargo on time and acceptance will be immediate and if it’s correctly booked it’s going to fl y immediately too,” he says.
In his experience at LuxairCARGO over the last 3-4 years, he has four major carriers, three of which the dwell time is less than six hours in the airport, whether it’s export or import. For the other carrier the services are not organised the same way, he says. “Th e prices are not the same, it’s a deferred service and the time spent for belly cargo at the airport can be 2-3 days, but it depends, if it’s perishables it can be just 2 1/2 hours – it’s just a question of service level agreement,” he emphasises.
“Th e ground handler is responsible, but is not the deciding factor on how long the cargo will remain at the airport – it’s a question of the the organisation of the cargo fl ow which is under the control of the carrier and the freight forwarder,” he adds.
In terms of the use of technology, Reynaerts is a proponent, but is sceptical cargo can ever be built up without physical handling. “Technology may help us for 5-10 per cent of our cost, but not more.
It will help us to have better control, but it will never go further because as long as human beings are involved they will need time, they will need training and as such it will remain a costly operation.”
Strapping issue
A key issue for him is with nearly 100 widebody freighter flights a week through Luxembourg from different carriers there has been major problem since June 2015 with severe delays of all cargo going to certain number destinations – mainly the US. Th is is direct result of the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) imposing a US$77,000 civil penalty against National Air Cargo for failing to comply with requirements for loading and securing heavy cargo which resulted in the 2013 crash of a B747-400 freighter in Afghanistan, highlighted Bob Rogers, vice president of ULD CARE.
With most of the freighters handled by LuxairCARGO carrying out-sized cargo and heavy loads these flights are being delayed 15 to 20 minutes for each of these fl ights because the loadmaster has given instructions two over-secure the loads before the aircraft takes off . Th is is “a huge amount of work,” Reynaerts notes, giving the example of a 10 tonne load on a 20- foot palette which previously would have been secured with 15-16 straps.
“But today you can count almost 40, 60 or even 80 straps. So there’s almost as many straps as you can place in an aircraft and you don’t see the cargo anymore underneath the straps,” he says. With ULD costs already a significant factor, the added cost of the straps – which frequently go missing – is only going to make the cost situation worse. “I really hope we come back to reason, because at this moment it’s really gone too far,” he adds. Injecting a dose of humour, Rogers added that every year 2.25 million straps are manufactured and someone from Emirates once asked him where ‘strap heaven’ is, because a lot of straps seem to be going there every year.
Rogers highlighted that currently the US is imposing a US$11,000 penalty per incorrect strap, should they conduct an audit of an aircraft upon arrival.
Referencing the National Air Cargo fatality, he says the anecdotal evidence is that 28 straps were used to secure each of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles (MRAPs) onboard which weigh between 10,400kg to 17,000kg each.
He added that when Boeing did the calculation for the same load weight according to the weight and balance manual, the results indicated that over 60 straps were required.
Lack of standarisation
For Vivien Lau, executive director of Hong Kong Air Cargo Terminals Ltd (Hactl) and managing director of Hong Kong Air Cargo Industry Services Ltd (Hacis), she reiterates Reynaerts’ position that ground handlers are only a small part of the supply chain equation and “we are taking orders from airlines and also we are dealing with the day-to-day requests of the freight forwarders.
“You can imagine for a ground handler like us we are handling more than 100 airlines and that means we are dealing with 100 variations of requirements, even though we are talking about the same ULD and same air waybill, but actually each airline is giving us different instructions and that means from our front-end staff have to learn 30 or 50 versions in order to perform their jobs,” she says. Th is then brings up the issue of standardisation with Lau urging a move to standardise procedures or at further align on a common platform that can help to improve efficiencies. Th is also feeds directly into another of Hactl’s problems – an acute labour shortage in Hong Kong.
“Even with all the technological advances, at the end of the day it’s the people who are building up the ULD, checking safety and accuracy. So the challenge for us, is how do we retain that knowledge and also how can we recruit new blood to carry-on that knowledge and experience.
“When it comes to any disasters, or emergency situations involving aircraft it’s the frontline experience that is important for dealing with the situations. So for Hactl the key challenge is how we retain them and also motivate them to do better and better and to uphold the safety rules and security measures,” she said.
Picking up on the issue of standarisation, Rogers held up Hong Kong airport and its ground handlers as the ‘gold standard’ in terms of quality and regulatory compliance, “but not far from Hong Kong it’s the opposite story,” he added. “We have to get a standard not only between airlines, but the whole industry needs to understand that there is a certain minimal level of performance they must meet.”
In full agreement Verhasselt highlighted the vast diff erence in ground handling standards in an example of a flight from “Hong Kong where everything has great standards and then fl y from straight into Lagos where standards are a slightly different and then from Lagos on the way back make a stop over in Juba and then the standards are diff erent again and then into Europe, into Luxembourg. Standardisation is important,” he emphasised.
“I think in general standardisation will definitely help, but unfortunately the reality of the handling world is not only different handling standards, but different ideas of standards in different geographical locations in the world,” added Ee.
An important part of the solution he added, was that ground handling should not be looked at from a transactional perspective. “We try not to in Singapore Airlines – we look at it as a partnership and we try to choose handlers that meet our standards in terms of safety, quality and delivering an overall quality product.
“I think the key is moving towards more of a partnership model. Th ere is some space in this relationship between airlines and ground handlers where we can find common ground and I think that has to be carefully nurtured. But I think the way forward is more collaborative as compared to transactional relationship,” he highlights.
“Th e handlers are actually an extension of the airline service and that for us is part of our service DNA. We have very intensive workshops and intensive conversations with our ground handlers because the onus is really on everyone, although quality comes at a cost we cannot compromise safety. We cannot have quality just for the sake of making more money, because at the end of the day the consequences can be fatal.”
Cost need not be a critical issue highlighted Rogers, who said companies can achieve a high quality and safety result simply by having better management and supervisory level focus and better operator training. “Th ese are not expensive but take a lot of sweat and hard work but they don’t come with a million-dollar price tag.”
e-AWB process
Lau noted that Hactl is a key supporter of the e-AWB process, but as a ground handler faces a number of challenges.
“We agree that in the end it will increase efficiency and we are going through the implementation period. We put in quite a lot of eff ort when we first started because we had the e-version, plus the paper version at the same time.
“What we have seen is the efficiency drops down, before it picks up again. We have 100 airlines so what we see is when we adopt the e-AWB for one airline, the efficiency drops down a bit and after we get used to that, one month later it’s applied to the second airline and can you can imagine that cycle can last for a year, two years or three years!”
“We don’t see the immediate benefit so that’s the frustration our operational teams are facing. Th ey will question us as to whether we are really achieving efficiency with this, or are we just stepping backwards?
Th ese are the real issues that Hactl has to tackle, she said, adding they also have to justify how big of an operational efficiency drop they can tolerate before we can enjoy the benefits of the e-AWB and the larger e-freight goal.
Luxembourg too is experiencing a similar process with one key exception. Atlas Air is a key customer and they decided to go 100 per cent e-AWB two years ago and according to Reynaerts the process is working flawlessly.
But that may be the exception, not the rule, as Reynaerts notes some carriers want to do the e-AWB and “they’re pushing us to respect their requirements, but that requires the support of the forwarders and they’re unable to get the FWB from the forwarders, so forget about the e-AWB. So we are in between two players in that case. Th e e-AWB must be a success and it will be a success at the time all countries will be part of the agreement,” he adds.
For SIA Cargo, the e-AWB is critical and the carrier has 100 per cent penetration on lanes where e-AWB is available. “Handling rates go down, processes improve at the same time,” he says, adding that its important to remember that e-AWB, “is the first step of a long journey with the end goal being e-freight.
“I think as we take more steps closer to the E freight goal the benefits are tremendous. So I hope that more countries will get on the e-AWB bandwagon because I see that as one of the cost effective ways to achieve efficiency in this industry.”
