Determinar y evaluar los costos de abastecimiento del área de logística

The Sliding Carpet with Baskets

In 1993, Scandinavian Belly Loading AB developed a prototype basket system designed to operate with Sliding Carpet (Scandinavian BellyLoading (1993)). The system utilised fibreglass baskets that were loaded with baggage in the baggage room and then transferred to the aircraft for stowage in the aircraft using a belt loader and the Sliding Carpet (see Figure 4.12.

Figure 4.1240

The Scandinavian BellyLoading Basket Version of the Sliding Carpet System

While the system did not progress to a production version, the concept was clearly ahead of its time. From a manual handling injury reduction viewpoint, the system had a combination of solutions that still have not been achieved by any other single system in airline operations today. All manual handling of baggage in the narrow-body aircraft baggage compartments was eliminated

using the system, manual handling of bulk baggage outside the aircraft was eliminated and the baskets were open-topped which facilitated the use of mechanical lifting aids for loading baggage into the baskets inside the

terminal. Truly, this was an attempt at a comprehensive engineering solution to the baggage handling injury problem.

Indeed, the containerised Airbus A320 is the only system presently available which offers this same opportunity for effective elimination of manual handling including the mechanical loading of containers in the baggage room (see Figure 4.13).

Figure 4.1341

The Airbus A320 Container with Door in Top of Container

These containers offer the first real opportunity for mechanical lifting aids similar to those used in other industries to be effectively utilised in airport baggage rooms (see Figures 4.14 and 4.15).

40

Diagram courtesy of Telair Scandinavian BellyLoading AB

41

Figure 4.14 Ergobag42

Mechanical Lifting Aid Adaption for Airport Baggage Rooms

Figure 4.15

Trials of an Australian mechanical lifting aid by Qantas Airways

These lifting aids met with limited success and were not yet in widespread use due to the difficulty of accessing standard containers with solid tops. The lifting aid could not access the top of these containers making the stacking of

baggage into the container awkward. Not withstanding some airlines are conducting trials of these systems (see GHI (2000) and Cree (2003)).

These solutions maybe more appropriate for open baggage barrows, but more design work was needed to improve the baggage grasping method of the units, an area that had been perceived as problematic in the past. (Cree (2003))

RampSnake

RampSnake is another contemporary solution for loading baggage into aircraft yet to be investigated in the literature. Like RTT, RampSnake (see Figure 4.16) has been designed to eliminate the lifting task within the narrow body aircraft. RampSnake features a telescopic section which can curve and reach eight metres into the baggage compartments of the aircraft to position the bags at the ideal palcement and height required by the baggage handler. It is

purported to be suitable for both narrow-body aircraft baggage compartments and wide-body aircraft bulk baggage holds alike. As with the RTT, the position and height of the RampSnake head is controlled by the loader working inside the aircraft.

The traditional high risk lifting task in the narrow-body aircraft would be eliminated by RampSnake and replaced with a comparatively lower risk pushing and guidance task similar to that of RTT.

RampSnake replaces the traditional belt loader currently in use by many airlines and is designed to be used with all aircraft, not only those fitted with ACE or Sliding Carpet systems as is the RTT, which the manufacturer promotes as an advantage. Interestingly, all of the systems weight stays on the ground, it is not part of the aircraft, a situation which will ensure the support of the aircraft performance engineers trying to maximise the aforementioned range and payload equation.

Figure 4.1643 RampSnake

42

Photo Courtesy of Airport Ground Equipment AB, Ljungskile, Sweden

43

While the true savings in reduced injury costs afforded by RampSnake are yet to emerge, the testimonials have been accumulating quickly, none better than that of the Executive VP of Arejdstilsynet (Danish Work Environment Service), H. Elo Petersen, who is reported to have said…. ”I have seen the RampSnake in operation at Copenhagen Airport – an amazing technical wonder, that eliminates the occupational lifting hazards when loading and offloading

aircraft. Arbeidstilsynet (Danish OSHA) has for many years now been focused on this particular environmental occupational problem. With the introduction of RampSnake, this problem will soon be a thing of the past.” (cited in Pierroff (2003)).

Terminal design

Baggage sorting systems have been developed to meet the demands caused by the ever-increasing volume of passengers. Very high-technology solutions have been applied to ensure efficient sorting of baggage (see for example Stearns (2005)). Yet all the contemporary baggage systems have combined this state of the art technology with standards of ergonomics which have been ineffective for many years, as the example in Figure 4.17 shows.

The high technology ends at the baggage handler who the latest designs have continued to ignore. The lateral belt at the end of the systems has been

designed to meet the needs of the average male. For example, the height of the baggage laterals and other carousels above the ground have been

determined by using ergonomic scales that put the outcome near the median height for the standard male population. So the baggage system provides an adequate solution for baggage handlers around the median height, but the taller or shorter an individual is the less suitable is the solution. For very tall baggage handlers, as appears to be the case with the baggage handler in Figure 4.17, the belts have been far too low and resulted in stooping postures when lifting and increased the risks of injury significantly.

Figure 4.1744

Latest technology tilt tray baggage sorter

If the system designers persist with using a person to collect the baggage from the end of the baggage system and manually load baggage barrows and containers in the traditional way, then there will need to be a change in the design paradigm to permit the heights of baggage belts and carousels to be adjusted by each individual baggage handler to maximise their ergonomic advantage. No longer should baggage lateral belts and carousels be permitted to be set in concrete and only provide real ergonomic benefit to the middle 5% of the baggage handler population.

The Advent of Robotics Solutions

In applying contemporary hazard management theory to the baggage

handling problem, elimination of the manual handling hazards would seem to be the ultimate aim. At the genesis of this research project, when robotics to eliminate manual handling was suggested as a potential long term aim for the industry (see Appendix No. 1, p5), the notion was viewed as fanciful at best, or more probably, foolish. In this study, baggage handlers supported

mechanical assistance devices as a potential solution (see Table 3.9) up to a point. Clearly, there was concern about job security which also influenced their views.

44

Photo courtesy of http://www.fkilogistex.com/airport/high-speed-sortation-systems/s-3000e-tilt-tray- sorter/

None the less, a small number of airlines, including Swissair and Qantas, have approached robotics manufacturers get them to look at applying robotics technology to the baggage handling problem. At the time there were three major stumbling blocks, the time taken for the robotics to sense each item of baggage and assess its characteristics, how the robot would grasp the

baggage since baggage was a myriad of different weights and sizes and how to use the robotics intelligently to maximise space utilisation when stacking baggage.

However, these problems may have been solved. Schnoor and Cottone (2003) reported on the development of robotics technologies that utilise high speed computing to assess each piece of luggage, identify and determine precisely what type of baggage is being presented and the system calculates the best position in the container or on the barrow for each piece of baggage to be placed (see Figure 4.18).

Figure 4.1845 Grenzebach

Robotic baggage container loading for Airport Baggage Rooms

Koini (2004) reported on the positive outcomes of a 12 month operational field test of a robot in the baggage room at Zurich Airport. The robot operated around the clock seven days per week loading 30 to 45 items of baggage into each container. The report suggested the need for manual handling was reduced, particularly in relation to lifting heavy items which usually caused significant strain, and the numbers of injuries to personnel were also reduced.

45

It will no doubt take some time for these robotics systems to be proven in normal airline operations and gain widespread industry acceptance. However, the Zurich experience suggests the day may be quickly approaching when the airport baggage room operation will be fully automated.