The Air Cargo System: January 1982

The Air Cargo System
January 1982
NTIS order #PB82-186818
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 80-600060
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402
Foreword
This background paper is one of four parts of an OTA assessment of the econom-
ic, environmental, and societal impacts of advances in the technology of transport air-
craft. This paper, Part 2, addresses the air cargo system. It seeks to put in perspective
the role and importance of aircraft technology in the total air cargo system. It is not a
detailed study of aircraft technology; it focuses instead on the principal factors that
could influence the future evolution of air cargo transport.
The overall assessment had its origin in a request from the House Committee on
Science and Technology asking OTA to examine the implications of the eventual wide-
scale introduction—or nonintroduction—of advanced high-speed passenger aircraft.
At the request of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
the assessment was subsequently broadened to include the aircraft used in providing
service to small communities and to embrace cargo as well as passenger transport.
This paper and the other three parts to this assessment (“Advanced High-Speed
Aircraft,” “Air Service to Small Communities,” and “Financing and Program Alterna-
tives for Advanced High-Speed Aircraft”) together comprise OTA’s published
documents for this study.
In conducting this assessment, OTA was assisted by an advisory panel that pro-
vided advice on the overall assessment and a working group focused on air cargo. I
would like to thank these individuals for their contributions.
JJOHN H. GIBBONS
Director
///.
OTA Advanced Air Transport
Technology Assessment Advisory Panel
Robert W. Simpson, Chairman

Director, Flight Transportation Laboratory
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jane H. Bartlett William K. Reilly

President President
Arlington County League of Women Voters The Conservation Foundation
Ray E. Bates David S. Stempler

Vice President Chairman, Government Affairs Committee
Douglas Aircraft Co. of the Board of Directors
Airline Passengers Association, Inc.
Norman Bradburn
Janet St. Mark
Director
President
National Opinion Research Center
SMS Associates
Frederick W. Bradley, Jr. John Wild
Vice President Executive Director
Citibank, N.A. National Transportation Policy Study Commission*
John G. Borger Holden W. Withington

Vice President Vice President
Pan American World Airways, Inc. Boeing Commercial Airplane Co.
Secor D. Browne Michael Yarymovych

Secor D. Browne Associates, Inc. Vice President
Rockwell International
F. A. Cleveland
Vice President Observers:
Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
Charles R. Foster
Associate Administrator for Aviation Standards
Elwood T. Driver Federal Aviation Administration
Vice Chairman
National Transportation Safety Board James J. Kramer**
Associate Administrator for Aeronautics
James C. Fletcher and Space Technology
Burroughs Corp. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NOTE: The Advisory Panel provided advice and comment throughout the assessment, but the members do not necessarily
approve, disapprove, or endorse the report for which OTA assumes full responsibility.
‘Commission was dissolved Dec 31, 1979.

●● Resigned from panel during conduct of study after leaving National Aeronautics and Space Administration
iv
OTA Air Cargo Project Staff
John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Science, Information, and Natural Resources Division
Yupo Chan William Mills Marsha Mistretta Jacquelynne Mulder

David Seidman Paula Walden Richard Willow
Contractors
M. Karen Gamble James Gorham Dorothea Gross
John Vaughan Arthur L. Webster
OTA Publishing Staff

John C. Holmes, Publishing Officer
John Bergling Kathie S. Boss Debra M. Datcher Joe Henson
Air Cargo Working Group
Keith G. Brady William T. Mikolowsky

Manager, Innovative Concepts Development Manager, Operation Research Department
Boeing Commercial Airplane Co. Lockheed Georgia Co.
Tulinda Deegan George A. Pasquet

Director, Government Relations U.S. Air Force
Commuter Airline Association of America Military Airlift Command
Leo F. Duggan
Vice President, Technical Affairs William F. Pieper
Airport Operations Council International Director, Technology Development
Flying Tiger Line
Douglas A. Fisher
Assistant General Manager Ray Siewert
Emery Air Freight OSD/OUSDR&E (ET)
Department of Defense
Joel H. Fisher
Director and Washington Counsel
Seaboard World Airlines Nawal K. Taneja
Flight Transportation Laboratory
E. R. Hichens Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Manager, Traffic Systems Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sears Roebuck and Co.
Matthew M. Winston
William H. Kuhlman Langley Research Center
Cargo Market Development National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Douglas Aircraft Co.
Dennis J. Marshall Shirley Ybarra

Manager, Development and Operation Engineering Vice President
Federal Express Corp. Simat, Helliesen, & Eichner
Contents
Chapter Page
1. Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Growth Rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Dedicated v. Derivative Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Ground Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Industry Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Lighter-Than-AirVehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Deregulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federal Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2. An Overview of the Air Cargo System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Air Cargo Industry Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The Impact of Long-Haul Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Costs and Profits of U.S. All-Cargo Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Profits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Air Cargo Deregulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Industry Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Impact on Rates and Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
The Present State of the Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Forecasted Industry Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Major Concerns of Cargo Carriers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3. Future Air Cargo Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Freighters Derived From Passenger Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Advantages and Disadvantages of Derivative Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Dedicated Air Freighters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Advantages and Disadvantages of a Dedicated Air Freighter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A Joint Military-Civil Cargo Airplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Advantages and Disadvantages of Joint Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4. Ground Support Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Air Terminal Space Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Mechanization and Containerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Degree of Mechanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Degree of Containerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Computerization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Pickup and Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5. Air Cargo Operating Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Federal Noise Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Airport Operating Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Night Curfews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Economic Impacts of Curfews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Benefits of Curfews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
The Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Operating Restrictions Overseas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
vii
Page
6. Lighter-Than-Air Vehicles ., ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Long Range Airships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Potential Properties of Modern Airships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Modernized Conventional Airships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Surveillance Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Heavy Lift Airships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
List of Tables
Table No. Page
1. General Air Freight Rate Increases for Selected Carriers, 1975-80 . . . . . . . . . . 15

2. Relative Cost per Unit Loading Device Under Varying Conditions . . . . . . . . . 36
3. Airport Operating Restrictions, 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4. Annual Direct Effects on the New England Economy of an ll p.m. to
7a.m. Curfew at Boston, Mass. .. .. ~. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
List of Figures
Figure
— No. Page
1. Labor and Fuel Prices for U.S. Trunks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Operating Ratio Scheduled All-Cargo Service by Carrier Group
(international) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3. Operating Ratio Scheduled All-Cargo Service by Carrier Group
(domestic) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
4. Straddle Lift for 6-Meter or Larger Container . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5. Side-by-Side Loading Capacity of Intermodal Containers in the B-747F . . . . 33
6. High Mechanization Elevating Transfer Vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7. Future Air Cargo Ground System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
8. Modular Intermodal Container Concept Modcon Array and Adaptor . . . . . . 37
9. Heavy Lift Airship Concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
10. Heavy Lift Airship—General Arrangement and Selected Performance
Characteristics 75 Ton Payload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
.,.
VIII
Chapter 1
SUMMARY
GROWTH RATE
Following World War II, U.S. air cargo car- cargo totals only 11 percent of all U.S. airline
riers exploited the speed advantage offered by revenues and 1.4 percent of all domestic freight
modern aircraft to build an industry with reve- revenues, For years, predictions have been made
nues that exceeded $3 billion in 1980. Despite that dramatic growth was just around the cor-
this growth, air cargo is still dwarfed both by the ner. In reality, the growth has been steady but
passenger side of the airline business and the sur- unspectacular.
face transport side of goods movement. Air
DEDICATED V. DERIVATIVE AIRCRAFT

Today, almost all civil cargo aircraft are tion by as much as 50 percent compared to
derivatives of passenger aircraft, largely because today’s most efficient carriers, very nearly the
the air cargo market is too small to support pro- same gains in efficiency could be achieved
duction of a completely new aircraft dedicated through conversion of 1990’s passenger aircraft
to cargo service only. Current estimates of for cargo use.
future market prospects (7 to 12 percent annual
The Department of Defense is currently study-
growth) do not indicate that this situation will
ing several options for meeting its future airlift
change in the next 20 years. Aircraft manufac-
needs, including the design of a joint civil/
turers are at the moment unwilling to assume the
military cargo aircraft, While such an aircraft of-
risk of producing a dedicated all-cargo aircraft,
fers the theoretical advantage of higher volume
particularly given the prospect of strong com-
production and therefore lower unit cost, similar
petition from future passenger derivatives.
joint planning efforts in the past did not work
Future cargo aircraft are expected to be far out to the satisfaction of the commercial sector.
more economical to operate because the passen- Industry remains skeptical that the product of
ger aircraft from which they are likely to be such a joint planning effort, compromised as it
derived necessarily will become more efficient to must be to meet military requirements, would be
stay competitive in a world of sharply rising competitive with derivatives of future passenger
energy costs. While a dedicated cargo carrier aircraft.
using 1990’s technology might cut fuel consump-
GROUND OPERATIONS
More efficient handling of cargo on the modal containers and mechanized equipment to
ground could have as much impact on future move the containers between carriers or into
growth and profitability of air cargo as would storage. It has been estimated that complete con-
the introduction of more efficient aircraft. The tainerization of cargo and a high level of mech-
private sector is working to develop more effi- anized handling could reduce the cost of ground
cient systems, including standardized inter- operations by as much as 70 percent. Such po-
3
4 ● Impact of Advanced Air Transport Technology
tential savings are sufficiently large that market riers and freight forwarders in the direction of
pressures will be sufficient to move cargo car- increased containerization and mechanization.
INDUSTRY PROBLEMS
To cope with the problem of aircraft noise, a loss of jobs and the Nation’s interest in maintain-
few airports in this country and many more ing the free movement of interstate commerce.
abroad have instituted nighttime curfews. These
restrictions could seriously limit the movements U.S. air cargo carriers also are concerned
of all-cargo carriers. Currently about half of all- about a variety of constraints associated with
cargo landings and takeoffs occur during the 10 landing in foreign airports which appear de-
p.m. to 7 a.m. time period in order to provide signed solely to protect that nation’s airline from
overnight delivery. In deciding whether curfews competition. Active support of relevant U.S.
should be instituted, the concerns of residents agencies has been and will probably continue to
living adjacent to airports need to be weighed be needed to help carriers cope with these bar-
against the community’s interest in preventing a riers.
LIGHTER-THAN-AIR VEHICLES
Interest in using lighter-than-air (LTA) or cles are expected to cruise at about one-fourth
hybrid LTA vehicles as air cargo carriers con- the speed of conventional jet aircraft, they are
tinues. The primary role for LTAs or hybrids not likely to compete with conventional air and
seems to be in the short distance movement of surface modes for the movement of goods over
very large cargo or for long endurance aerial long distances.
surveillance. Since modern, nonrigid LTA vehi-
DEREGULATION
The air cargo industry is currently undergoing transportation. It is of interest that this trend
a period of rapid change brought about in part toward integrated services does not necessarily
by deregulation of air cargo in 1977, followed by depend for its success upon the introduction of
deregulation of passenger airlines in 1978 and new technology in the air or on the ground. Ex-
trucking in 1980. Air cargo carriers are now free press package delivery, which is the fastest
to raise or lower rates, serve any markets they growing and most profitable segment of the air
choose, and own and operate trucks that can fan cargo industry, uses conventional aircraft and
out for hundreds of miles to pick up and deliver ground handling systems largely consisting of
goods. The only requirement is that this goods conveyor belts. The express package industry
movement be related to an air cargo operation. experience suggests that while new technology
Several carriers are now taking advantage of can result in operating efficiencies, it is not a
these newly won freedoms to offer single carrier substitute for providing services carefully
shipping using both air and ground modes of tailored to the needs of shippers.
Ch. l—Summary ● 5
FEDERAL POLICY
The only significant Federal regulations affec- (CAB) of reporting requirements. This has left
ting air cargo operations still in place following both the Government and the public with no
air cargo deregulation concern aircraft safety means of monitoring the flow of the air cargo
and noise standards. Two additional areas for portion of interstate commerce. The Air Freight
continued Federal involvement relate to unfair Forwarders Association has requested that CAB
foreign practice concerning U.S. carriers and in- reestablish some “minimal” reporting re-
ternational agreements on ratemaking. One quirements to show where freight is moving and
potential problem area relates to the phasing out where traffic is developing.
or elimination by the Civil Aeronautics Board
Chapter 2
AN OVERVIEW OF THE
AIR CARGO SYSTEM
Chapter 2
AN OVERVIEW OF THE
AIR CARGO SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of air transportation, air In the period following World War II and
cargo has grown largely as an auxiliary to pas- through the 1960’s, the introduction of new tech-
senger service. As late as 1978, more than one- nology—long-haul propeller and then jet air-
half of scheduled air cargo moved in the bellies craft—had a great effect on the air cargo in-
of passenger aircraft. In the last decade, how- dustry. In recent years, Government deregula-
ever, domestic all-cargo carriers (those airlines tion has come to have a major impact. Although
that carry only goods, not people) have begun to the long-term effect of deregulation is still
increase their share of the market, Cargo ac- unclear, it already has enabled such innovations
counts for 11 percent of the total revenues of as intermodal cargo service (by Flying Tiger).
U.S. commercial air carriers. In 1980, scheduled While the air cargo industry as a whole showed
air cargo generated over $3 billion in revenues. 1 operating profits only during the 1960’s, com-
bination (passenger/cargo) carriers flying inter-
national routes have generally made a profit and
‘Air Cargo Statistics, U.S. Scheduled Airlines, Total industry,
1980 (Washington, D. C.: Air Transport Association of America, innovators such as Federal Express have been ex-
1981 ), p. 4. tremely profitable.
AIR CARGO INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

The world’s air cargo delivery system is com- A second network utilizes aircraft that carry
prised of two networks. The first is essentially just cargo. These dedicated cargo aircraft, some-
the same as the passenger network. In this sys- times referred to as freighters, or all-cargo air-
tem passengers are carried above and cargo is craft, come in all sizes from small, propeller-
carried below in the belly of the aircraft, utiliz- driven aircraft to giant Boeing 747s configured
ing space not needed by baggage or mail—hence to carry only cargo. The network over which
the name “belly cargo. ” These flights are routed all-cargo aircraft operate is less extensive than
and scheduled for the convenience of the passen- the passenger network, but has over the years
gers. While the passenger airlines are generally carried a growing proportion of total air cargo.
willing to sell this otherwise unused space, they These aircraft generally fly at night and are
have not always wanted to bother with the scheduled for the convenience of shippers.
ground operations of pickup and delivery and
loading the belly containers, so a class of in- All-cargo aircraft are flown by both all-cargo
direct carriers—called “forwarders’’—has ful- carriers and some combination carriers. As the
filled this function. Until the Air Cargo name suggests, all-cargo carriers fly all-cargo
Deregulation Act of 1977 these forwarders could aircraft exclusively. Federal Express, the small
not operate their own aircraft, although one package delivery service, and Flying Tiger are
large forwarder, Emery, organized a fleet of examples of all-cargo carriers. Combination car-
leased aircraft totally dedicated to its service. riers transport both passengers and freight.
9
——
10 ● Irnpact of Advanced Air Transport Technology
Some, such as Pan American and Northwest, Approximately 20 percent of air cargo ton-
own all-cargo aircraft while others such as Con- miles is carried by all-cargo carriers, with the
tinental, TWA, and most commuter airlines rest flown by combination carriers. The combin-
carry only belly cargo. ation carriers in turn transport about half their
Photo credit McDonnell Douglas
Cutaway layouts of a DC-8F combination cargo and passenger aircraft
Photo credit Flying Tiger Lines
All cargo aircraft

Ch. 2—An Overview of the Air Cargo System ● 11
cargo in the bellies of passenger aircraft and the ground pickup and delivery system typically
other half in their own all-cargo aircraft. Load used to provide this service.
factors are much higher for all-cargo aircraft: in The express package market is the fastest
1978, only 28 percent of available belly cargo growing segment of air cargo. Federal Express,
space was used, while for all-cargo aircraft the with over half of the market, reported 67-per-
figure was 64 percent. 2 cent growth from 1978 to 1979, 3 The express
The air cargo market is not homogeneous, business has grown to the point where small jets
and the differences have resulted in specializa- are often too small, and express carriers are
tion among various carriers. Federal Express, using the freedom granted with deregulation to
Emery Express (part of Emery Air Freight), acquire 727s, 737s, and even DC-1 OS.
Purolator Courier, and others have concen- Other characteristics of air express are dif-
trated on the express or premium-package-deliv- ferent from general air freight. Contrary to the
ery market, which is a special segment of the air observation that air cargo is only competitive at
cargo market. This specialization came about in long distances, some of these shipments, espe-
part because the individual pieces are small, cially those on commuter passenger flights, can
thereby enabling hub operations to be less mech- be on the order of 100 or so miles. In this situa-
anized than that required for the bulky con- tion air is competitive with ground modes be-
tainers common to general freight. In addition, cause of the high frequency and convenience of
while the cost per package is moderate, the service; the commuter carriers can easily and
package is small, so the net result is high revenue cheaply offer no-wait movement of goods. The
per pound. Higher unit revenue makes it possi- commuters also sometimes offer special pickup
ble to cover the higher costs inherent in the use and delivery service, as do the specialized ex-
of the small business jets and the small-shipment press package carriers.
——
‘Air Cargo Statistics, U S Scheduled Airlines Total Industry,
1978 (Washington, D, C,: Air Transport Association of America, ‘Federal Express Corp., Development of Operation Engineering
1979), chart D . Section, telephone interview, Feb. 5, 1980.
THE IMPACT OF LONG-HAUL AIRCRAFT

Total world scheduled air cargo traffic, as Turbine-powered aircraft have dominated the
reported by International Civil Aviation Organ- commercial U.S. all-cargo system since 1967,
ization, experienced a sharp build-up in 1947 to pacing the development of the present system.
1951 and a growth of 100 percent in the decade The introduction of the stretched DC-8-63F in
of the 1950’s.4 1968 further spurred the growth of all-cargo
traffic, particularly in international operations.
This 1950’s growth coincided with the advent
The DC-8-63F carried over 40 percent of total
of propeller aircraft capable of long-haul, non-
scheduled U.S. all-cargo traffic by 1974, and
stop domestic and international service.
then started to lose ground to the B-747F. By
Another surge began in 1958 with the introduc-
1978, the 747F carried 57 percent of total U.S.
tion of jet aircraft for passenger operations; their
all-cargo traffic and 81 percent of U.S. interna-
belly capacity was such as to provide an enor-
tional all-cargo traffic. 5
mous increase in available lift capacity. How-
ever, air cargo traffic and revenues most clearly
began to respond when jet freighters (B-707F and
DC-8F) entered service in 1963.
— —— --—---- ‘Operating Results From Scheduled All-Cargo Service for the 12
4
ICA0 Bulletin, May 1969, table 9, p. 28 and diagram 1, p. 19. Months Ended June 30, 1978 (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Civil Aero-
ICAO “cargo” does not include mail. nautics Board, October 1978), table 4.
72 • Impact of Advanced Air Transport Technology
—
COSTS AND PROFITS OF U.S. ALL= CARGO OPERATIONS

costs Profits
During the 1962-66 period, unit operating International air cargo has a greater speed dif-
costs sharply declined. This coincided with the ferential over the ocean shipping industry than
introduction of turbine-powered all-cargo air- domestic air cargo has over the domestic truck-
craft (B707Fs and DC-8FS) in 1963 and with a ing industry. This comparative advantage has
major increase in all-cargo volume and growth helped international air cargo operations to
rates. Overall U.S. all-cargo aircraft traffic show a better operating and profit performance.
growth rates reached over 55 percent in 1965,
As shown in figure 2, the international opera-
with the all-cargo traffic of combination carriers tions of both combination carriers and all-cargo
increasing 134 percent. G
carriers, produced an operating profit—an ex-
After 1973, as shown in figure 1, fuel costs cess of revenues over expenses—for a sustained
nearly quadrupled. Labor costs also increased period of time. By contrast, figure 3 shows that
during the 1970’s, but not as rapidly as did fuel in the domestic market combination carriers
costs. Fuel and labor were roughl y equal com- showed profits for only one brief period
ponents of total operating costs in 1979; but con- (1966-67). The all-cargo carriers did little better:
tinued price increases now make fuel the largest they were profitable in 1966-67 and again in
single cost element. 1972-73. Although they were in a loss position
6
Trends in Scheduled A1l-Cargo Service, 6th ed. (Washington, when the data ended (1977), the losses were nar-
D. C,: U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board), table 10A, p. 31. - rowing.
This lackluster performance has caused many
Figure l.— Labor and Fuel Prices for U.S. Trunks all-cargo carriers to drop out or be absorbed by
(1967 dollars)
other carriers. Several combination carriers,
30 most recently TWA, have discontinued all-cargo
service. Those remaining in the business have
done so for a variety of reasons. Combination
25 carriers flying international routes have gener-
ally been able to show a profit and the prevailing
20 Figure 2.—Operating Ratio (operating expense as a

percent of operating revenue) Scheduled All-Cargo
Service by Carrier Group (international)
i
15 Percent
8 0
’ ~
I
160
Unprofitable
140
10 I
c. .
I 1 1 1 I 1 1 t I t 1
i 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 78 80
1963 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77
. SOURCES: U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board, Handbook of Airline Statistics
(Washington, D.C,, 1973) part VII, table 16; Handbook of Airline SOURCE U S Civil Aeronautics Board, Trends in Scheduled A// Cargo Service
Statistics Supplement, 1974-7978, part Vll, table 16, Air Transport 6th ed (Washington, D C Government Printing Off Ice, 1977) table
Association, Air Cost index (Washington, D C., 1980), p 7. 3A, p 8
Ch. 2—An Overview of the Air Cargo System • 73
——. -. —.—.
Figure 3.—Operating Ratio (operating expense as a view is that the prospects for future growth and
percent of operating revenue) Scheduled All-Cargo profitability are good. In the case of all-cargo
Service by Carrier (domestic)
carriers, Flying Tiger is convinced that the
Percent potential for growth is strong in the domestic
180 T
market and deregulation of both air cargo and
160 - Combination
Unprofitable trucking opens up the prospect of forging a
All cargo carriers highly profitable intermodal cargo service.
120
Federal Express has demonstrated that it is not
100 impossible to reap huge profits from air cargo.
80 Their revenues have grown from $17 million in
60 1974 to $415 million in 1980. Since the company
40 turned a profit in its third year of operation
20 (1976) earnings have multiplied at the annual
rate of 76 percent.
1963 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 7576 77
SOURCE U S CiV il Aeronautics Board Trends in Scheduled All-Cargo Service,

6th ed. (Washington D C Government Printing Off Ice, 1977), table
3A, p 8
AIR CARGO DEREGULATION

Prior to the passage of the Air Cargo air freight service and discontinued freighter
Deregulation Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-163), operations to a number of cities. In the late
the Civil Aeronautics Board (CAB) was respon- 1960’s, approximately 50 U.S. cities were receiv-
sible for the economic regulation of commercial ing domestic all-cargo service. By 1977, that
airlines including both the all-cargo and com- figure had been cut almost in half. There was a
bination carriers. (Commuter carriers operating movement away from scheduled service as ship-
aircraft with payload under 7,500 lb and airlines pers increasingly turned to contract (charter)
operating solely within the borders of one State carriage or to other modes. 8
were exempt from regulation). CAB granted
It has been argued that the regulatory system
each carrier a “certificate of public convenience
frustrated the growth of the air cargo industry
and necessity” which specified the points which
not only by restricting the routes but also by
could be served. CAB was also responsible for
keeping many rates below costs. Carriers claim
setting rates.
that prior to deregulation air freight rates had
The domestic all-cargo industry was in poor been too low to support the level of prime-time
financial health in the early to mid-l970’s. A freighter operations which the market de-
series of congressional hearings on air cargo held manded. The Domestic Freight Investigation
in 1976 highlighted the precarious state of the in- completed by CAB shortly before cargo deregu-
dustry. 7 Only two certificated all-cargo carriers lation concluded that regulated freight rates
were operating domestic services, and both had were fully 42 percent below those justified by
experienced financial difficulties, During the estimates of long-run costs during 1976. 9
1970-1976 period, Western, Continental, Delta,
On November 9, 1977, President Carter
and Eastern terminated all-cargo service. Amer-
signed Public Law 95-163 deregulating air cargo
ican and United reduced prime-time (overnight)
-- 8 ——. -
Domestic Air Cargo Deregulatio A Prrli))/it/urw RL~I/LUI
‘See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and (Washington, 13. C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of
T r a n s p i r a t i o n , Reform of t)ILJ Eco)~omic R~~<g~/l~~tio~l of ,41r ~or- the Secretary, 1979), p. 7.
ricrs, hearings before the Subcommittee on Avia tlon, 94th Cong., ‘Dotl~cTstIc AIr FrcIg/It RL/tcs lt~i~(’stig~?tl~~r~ order No. 77-8-62,
1st sess., serial No. 94-55, 1976. (Washington, D. C.: U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board, 1976), p. 42.
rates and for 1 year limiting free entry into new

markets to “grandfathers,” that is carriers who
had offered all-cargo service in the past (whether
certificated or not). This authority was extended
by subsequent act to include supplemental (char-
ter) carriers in March 1978.
Rights under the new authority are granted
under section 418 of the Federal Aviation Act.
Seventy-four carriers received “section 418 cer-
tificates. ” Most of these were small contract
carriers. Trunk airlines receiving certificates
included American, Braniff, Pan American,
TWA, Northwest, and United.
Industry Response Photo credit Federal Express
During the first year under deregulation, Pan eluded Delta, Continental, and Allegheny (now
American was the only trunk carrier to begin USAIR), together with such major air freight
new services. TWA discontinued its all-cargo forwarders as Emery and Airborne. Currently
operations, and there was little activity from over 100 carriers hold section 418 certificates.
other CAB certificated carriers. Six supplemen-
tal carriers received section 418 certificates, There has been no rush of total newcomers to
but only two (Evergreen and Zantop) began new the air freight industry. Because of high startup
service. costs, most of those entering or expanding air
cargo service have been established carriers.
As expected, the all-cargo carriers, Airlift, Several air freight forwarders are furnishing
Flying Tiger, and Seaboard, took advantage of their own cargo service in markets where belly
the new route freedom. Flying Tiger has been es- capacity is inadequate. Often they lease aircraft
pecially aggressive in expanding the network of and pilots—an arrangement called a wet lease.
cities it serves. In addition, it has acquired both The major air freight markets remain dominated
Seaboard and several regional trucking firms. by the same carriers as before deregulation, The
Federal Express, a commuter airline originally new entrants are primarily operating in local
organized to carry express packages and docu- commuter-type markets.
ments in small business jets, has also expanded
its route structure since deregulation. For Fed- Impact on Rates and Service
eral Express, deregulation meant the right to
Although some early proponents of cargo de-
operate larger aircraft. It took advantage of this
regulation had predicted that rates would drop,
new freedom by purchasing B-727s, B-737s, and
there has been an increase in air freight rate
DC-1 OS.
levels and premium rates charged for commodi-
In November 1978, 1 year after the passage of ties requiring special handling. The Shippers Na-
the deregulation bill, entry to air cargo operational Freight Claim Council, Inc., has testified
tions was no longer confined to airlines which that the real increases in rates published between
had offered prior service. “Any citizen of the January 1978 and January 1979 range up to 89
United States” interested in operating an all- percent on minimum charges, 21 percent on
cargo airline was allowed to file an application 100-lb rates, and 76 percent on 5,000-lb rates.10
for a section 418 certificate. CAB reports, however, that air cargo rates
10
—.
By the middle of September 1979, several ad- Shippers National Freight Claim Council, testimony of
William J. Angello, Executive Director/General Counsel before
ditional carriers received section 418 certificates the Subcommittee on Aviation, House Committee on Public
under these new open-entry rules. These in- Works and Transportation, July 25, 1979.
began to increase in the 2 years preceding dereg- rates have increased, but carriers have been of-
ulation and that some carriers have boosted fering discounted rates—usually for large ship-
their rates more than others (see table 1). ments and particularly on selected daylight
flights which are less popular with shippers than
The rates for some commodities and some
“prime-time” (overnight) flights. There have
markets have increased more than others. Rates
also been some rate cuts in the small package
for live animals have increased from 110 to 200
sector as some of the larger carriers attempt to
percent of general commodity rates. Many car-
compete with Federal Express in the rapidly
riers have increased priority rates from 130 to
growing small package business.
150 percent of the general commodity rates.
Rates in short-haul markets have increased more Although CAB has yet to issue a new set of
than in long-haul markets. Short-haul markets rules governing ratemaking on international
have long been unprofitable, while the denser routes, it has notified domestic carriers that it
long-haul markets are more compatible with does not favor their participation in the Interna-
freighter aircraft economics. tional Air Transport Association ratemaking
proceedings. Substantial excess cargo capacity
Published rates, however, do not tell the
over the North Atlantic has led to a rate war,
whole story. Air freight rate levels and premium
and CAB apparently is not going to intervene.
Table 1 .—General Air Freight Rate Increases for Some shippers have claimed that air cargo
Selected Carriers 1975-80 service has been reduced since passage of the Air
Carriers operating Carriers with no Cargo Deregulation Act. It is likely, however,
freighters freighter operations that the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (Public
Effective dates AA FT UA CO DL TWA Law 95-504) at least initially had more effect on
Jan. 1975 . . . . . . 10% 80/0 70/o — — 80/0 cutbacks in belly capacity than did the cargo de-
July/Aug. 1975 . . . . . . . . . . 10 9 7 7% 60/0 9
Feb. 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 8 — — 9 regulation act. Immediately following airline de-
April 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 6 – regulation, there was an increase in passen-
Oct. 1976 . . . . . . . . . 10 10 8 — — 8
Dec. 1976 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — 8 6 1 gers—and therefore passenger baggage—with a
July 1977 9 9 9 — — 8 resulting decrease in belly space available for
Sept. /Oct. 1977 . . . . . . – – – 8 8 –
Nov. 9, 1977 Al R CARGO D E R EG U LAT 10 N cargo. In 1980, passenger load factors fell, thus
Mar./April 1978 10 8 9 – 10 9 freeing up additional belly space. Some of the
N OV . 1978 . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — 11 — —
Jan./Feb. 1979 . . . . . . . . . . 9 8 9 – 5 – larger air freight forwarders have begun to work
May 1979 – 5 — – — – more with charter and commuter carriers which
June 1979. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 — – — —
Aug,lSept. 1979 . . . . . . . . . 7 – 12 – — 8 will serve those areas abandoned by trunk air-
oct. 1979 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . – 4 – 10 15 – lines. CAB officials of the previous administra-
Nov./Dee. 1979. . . . . . . . . . 5 5 5 — — 5
Jan./Feb. l98O . . . . . — 5 5 10 – – tion admitted that some small communities lost
Mar./April l98O 10 5 2 – 10 12 air freight capacity when airlines discontinued
June/July 1980. . . . . . . . . . 10 10 10 10 — 10
Sept. /Oct. 1980 . . . . . . . . . 10 7 7 – – – combination service. They did not see this as a
Carrier codes. AA American CO Continental
problem, however, saying that the type of air-
FT Flying Tiger DL Delta craft used in such service typically did not carry
UA United TW TWA
much freight and also pointing out that it is
a
TwA terminated freighter operations m 1978
rapidly being replaced by truck service owned or
NOTE. These percentages represent in some cases simple “across. the-board”
Increases by the amount Indicated, and in others a weighted average of leased by air cargo carriers to funnel shipments
Increases of varying amounts for different categories of rates (I e ,
changes in the rate structure Itself) to nearest air freight traffic hubs.
SOURCE. CiviI Aeronautics Board
THE PRESENT STATE OF THE INDUSTRY

It is not possible to put together a complete Commuter airlines increased their total cargo
picture of the present state of the cargo industry. tonnage by 48 percent during 1978, compared to
Following deregulation, CAB reduced, and in 12 percent in 1977. ’ 11 In this category, Federal
some cases, eliminated reporting requirements, Express has expanded its total shipments by 67
leaving both the Government and the public percent in 1979 as compared to 38 percent in
with no way to monitor the performance of the 1978, and 15 percent in 1977.2
industry, The Air Freight Forwarders Associa-
tion has requested that CAB reestablish some Total freight revenue ton-miles of the trunk
“minimal” reporting requirements for for- combination carriers increased only 1.1 percent
warders and airlines that would at least provide in 1978 compared to 7.0 percent in 1977. All-
data on where freight is moving and where traf- cargo traffic of the trunk carriers increased 2.0
fic is developing. There is concern as well that percent in 1978.13 Data from the Air Transport
this lack of data may permit organizations and Association show that freight revenues for the
individuals to use fragmentary information to scheduled carriers increased 14.5 percent in
support their particular positions. 1980, but traffic (ton-miles) decreased 1.7 per-
cent, 14 reflecting both the rate increases and the
CAB testified before the House Subcommittee impact of the recession.
on Aviation in July 1979 that the all-cargo car-
riers increased their total revenue ton-miles of
shipments by approximately 26 percent during ——. .— .-. — .- -
1
1978 compared to an Ii-percent growth during ‘U.S. Civil Aeronautics Board, testim~ln?’ bet(>re the Subc(}m-
mittee cm Aviation, House C(>mmittee <>n I’ubllc \\’~~rl+ and
1977. Flying Tiger increased its domestic revenue Transportation, July 25, 1Q79, p. 37.
ton-miles over 33 percent, but a large part of this ‘2Fecleral Express Corp., Development [~t Operatli~n Englncenng
increase was due to a reclassification of some Section, telephone interview., Feb. 5, 1Q80.
‘3AZII,ItIC))I D,~Ilu Dec. 5, IQi’Q.
Alaska traffic (enroute between the United ‘ 4 A I t ~-~~~g(~ St[~tI+tIt+ I Q,W (~’ashingt[~n, ~.~- Alr Tr~n<p~~rt
States and Japan) as domestic. Association, June 1Q81 ).
FORECASTED INDUSTRY GROWTH

Available forecasts of long-term air cargo occurred in late 1979. While air cargo market
growth vary from about 8 to 11 percent for both forecasts in the past have tended to be overop-
U.S. domestic and U.S. international traffic. timistic, it should be noted that in 1972 few ex-
Total free world growth was estimated by one pected the phenomenal rate of growth that sub-
forecaster at 12 percent, and by another to be sequently occurred in the express package deliv-
between 7 and 9 percent. All estimates were ery business.
made before the sharp increase in fuel prices that
MAJOR CONCERNS OF CARGO CARRIERS

The major concerns of the air cargo industry Another concern is that airport space is
today are similar to the concerns of the air pas- becoming increasingly tight, especially for cargo
senger industry. Fuel costs, though having re- carries. As will be discussed in chapter 4, the
cently stabilized, still play a major role in deter- construction of major new airports appears un-
mining which markets to enter or exit. likely in the near future, but some alternatives
are available for making better use of existing curfews are still not common in the United
facilities. States, but if adopted they could severely impact
cargo operations.
Also, carriers will have to bring their fleets
into compliance with Federal Aviation Adminis- Another industry concern relates to actions of
tration noise standards under new noise legis- some foreign government policies to protect
lation. Communities are continuing to exert their national airline from U.S. competition.
pressures against aircraft noise, resulting in in- Some industry spokesmen state that a concerted
creased attempts to reduce noise impacts by im- U.S. Government effort is needed to ensure that
posing operating restrictions on carriers. Night U.S. carriers are treated fairly overseas.
Chapter 3
FUTURE AIR CARGO AIRCRAFT

Chapter 3
FUTURE
—.— AIR CARGO AIRCRAFT
.—
Almost all commercial all-cargo aircraft cur- 1. as a derivative of a new or existing
rently in the fleet are derivatives or conversions passenger or military airplane;
of passenger aircraft. Some civilian and military 2. development of a dedicated civilian cargo
planners, as well as some all-cargo operators, aircraft designed without regard for either
have argued that the growth of the industry has passenger or military requirements; and
been hampered by the lack of aircraft optimized 3. development of a joint civil-military air
to fulfill cargo carrying requirements. cargo plane that would satisfy both com-
mercial and military requirements.
Three alternative approaches to the develop-
ment of future all-cargo aircraft have been iden- Each of these alternatives will be discussed in
tified: turn.
FREIGHTERS DERIVED FROM PASSENGER AIRCRAFT

In 1963, freighter service was available only Both aircraft could carry 13 pallets of 88 by 125
with propeller aircraft: about 75 percent piston inches, the standard units at that time.
aircraft (primarily the DC-7) and 25 percent tur-
The B-747 freighter comes closest to being a
boprops (such as the CL-44). By 1970, almost 98
dedicated or uncompromised freighter design for
percent of scheduled freighter service was of-
commercial operations. When Boeing lost the
fered with jet aircraft: 55 percent with the
competition for the military cargo C-5A con-
B-707-300 B/C, 22 percent with the DC-8-63F,
tract to Lockheed in 1965, Boeing took its
11 percent with the DC-8-50F, and 10 percent
with the B-727-1OO C/QC. assembled C-5A design team, added personnel
from their commercial program, and set out to
The fleet average operating cost declined from design an aircraft to meet the perceived needs of
$0.30 per revenue ton-mile in 1963 to $0.16 in the rapidly growing commercial market. The re-
1967 and then began to increase, reaching $0.27 sulting B-747 was designed as a passenger plane.
in 1977 (current dollars). Total operating costs However, because it appeared at that time that a
have been steadily rising since 1973 because of supersonic transport (SST) would be a strong
general inflation as well as the abrupt increase in competitor, the 747 was also designed to be an
the price of fuel. Although the introduction of efficient freighter in the event that the SST took
the B-747 in domestic service did produce lower over the passenger market.
cost freighter service, the small number of
The 747 was designed to hold two 8 by 8 ft
B-747s relative to the B-707s and DC-8s has not
containers abreast. This was the origin of the
yet changed the fleet average cost curve. B-747s
wide body, which at the time had little to do
have found much greater use in international
with passenger appeal. 1 The requirement that
cargo operations than they have in domestic
cargo be loaded through the nose of the aircraft
operations.
forced the cockpit to be placed at the upper
Both the B-707 and the DC-8 were designed as
passenger aircraft, with the fuselage cross-sec- ‘John E. Steiner, ]et Aviation Deueiopmeut: Ot~e Compan ys
P~mp~ctizw, prepared by Boeing Commercial Aircraft Co. (Wash-
tion being determined by the requirements of ington, D. C.: National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian In-
six-abreast seating and the width of the aisle. stitution, October 1979), pp. 15-18.
21
deck. Aerodynamic considerations required the stretched. Finally, Boeing is planning a freighter
designers to allow a door height of only 8 feet, 2 version of the B-767 aircraft. 3
inches—resulting in only a 2-inch clearance for
For the light-payload category of freight-
containers.
ers—under 60,000 lb—Lockheed is considering
marketing a potential derivative of its Hercules
Because the SST did not materialize as a com- L-1OO, Dash sO. Current proposals include a
petitor, the first 747 freighter was not delivered stretch of up to 45 ft over the basic model, which
until 1972, more than 2 years later than the first would provide capabilit y for transporting up to
passenger version. Since then, however, prog- eight 8 by 8 by 10 ft containers with payload
ress has been rapid, with a total of 129,747 ranging from 54,000 to 72,000 lb. This aircraft
freighters delivered by December 1980.2 could replace the B-707-320C and the DC-8F on
a number of routes and also have the capability
Manufacturers are currently considering a (because of being able to handle the 8 by 8 ft
number of variations on their existing aircraft. containers) to be an intermodal feeder freighter
In the large-payload category, Boeing is con- for carriers using the B-747F. Other advantages
sidering stretching its B-747-200F up to 50 ft, include lower fuel cost and straight-in, straight-
resulting in 30 percent additional containerized out loading. The Dash so would be appropriate
volume. In the medium-payload category-de- for short- to medium-range hauls—l,400 statute
rivative aircraft would include the L-1011-500F, miles with a payload of 66,000 lb and 1,960
the DC-1 OF, and the B767F. Douglas’ DC-1OF miles with a payload of 50,000 lb. Derivatives of
could be stretched and offered in a “combi” ver- the present B-727 and B-737 may also be possi-
sion. Boeing’s B-707-320C could conceivably be ble.’
— 3
Steiner, op. cit., 167-168.
‘Boeing Aircraft Co., telephone interview, July 14, 1981. ‘Ibid.
Ch. 3—Future Air Cargo Aircraft ● 23
——
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DERIVATIVE AIRCRAFT

Existing air cargo derivatives of passenger before production (as compared to all new air-
airplanes have proven very satisfactory. For ex- craft).
ample, the B-747-200F has proven to be the large
A major disadvantage of existing air cargo air-
payload workhorse of the air cargo fleet and
craft is that they represent 1960’s technology and
could continue unmodified for a number of
that, therefore, their direct operating costs are
years.
higher than what might be achieved with present
Any derivative freighter has the advantage of technology. Additionally, since they generally
having most of its development costs already have not been designed specifically for air cargo,
charged against the sale of its passenger counter- loading and unloading can present problems; the
part. In addition, the financial arrangements for aircraft may be pressurized more than neces-
purchasing the airplane have already been estab- sary, and there may be equipment built in for
lished and there is a relatively short lead time passenger safety that is unneeded for cargo.
DEDICATED AIR FREIGHTERS

A dedicated commercial air freighter is an could be commercially viable and could become
airplane which has been designed from the operational in 1985. Results suggested a prefer-
ground up as a freighter, with no constraints im- ence for a short- and a long-range version, each
posed by either passenger or military require- with a payload of about 330,000 lb. G At com-
ments. Over the years, there has been a debate parable payloads, these cargo aircraft were
concerning the cost effectiveness of such an estimated to provide a 20 percent reduction in
airplane, with some all-cargo carriers claiming trip cost and a 15 percent decrease in aircraft
that they could consistently earn a profit if they price compared to current wide bodies in in-
had such an aircraft. To help resolve this contro- flated 1984 dollars, ’ Douglas estimated there
versy, the National Aeronautics and Space Ad- could be 400 such derivatives produced by
ministration (NASA) selected two contractors, 1998. 8
Douglas Aircraft Co. and Lockheed-Georgia
A long- and a short-range dedicated freighter
Co., to independently evaluate the feasibility of
were then hypothesized to be introduced in 1994
producing such a freighter by 1990. This was
using 1990 technology (an unrealistically short
done as part of the Cargo/Logistics Airlift
development time according to some experts).
Systems Study (CLASS). ’
The 1990 technology assumed was derived from
Douglas made several forecasts of the future NASA’s Aircraft Energy Efficiency (ACEE) pro-
fleet composition given various developments. gram, which seeks to develop a variety of
Their analysis indicated that two new cargo air- technologies leading to fuel savings and lower
craft could be derived from existing wide body operating costs for future passenger aircraft.
aircraft using 1980 technology. These aircraft Some of the new technologies include: 1) com-
—— posite materials, which reduce weights and pro-
‘See: McDonnell Douglas Corp., Douglas Aircraft Co., Cargo
Logistics Airlift Systems Stud y (CLASS), 4 vols,, prepared by R. J. vide higher strengths; 2) active controls, which
Burby and W. H. Kuhlman, under NASA contract No. NASl- provide automatic response to flight and gust
14948 (Hampton, Va.: Langley Research Center, National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, October 1978). (Hereafter cited
conditions; and 3) advanced engine technology,
as “Douglas, CLASS.”) See also: Lockheed-Georgia Co., with higher thrust to weight ratios and better
Cargo ‘Logistics Airlift Systems Study (CLASS) 2 vols., prepared specific fuel consumption.
by J. M. Norman, R. D. Henderson, F. C. Macey, and R. P. —. —.——
Tuttle, under NASA contract No. NASA-14967 (Hampton, Va.: ‘Douglas, CLASS Volume -? F//tur~~ 1<~’(l~{tr~~t)l[~~lts c)f DL~dIcL~t(~Li
Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Admin- Freighter Aircraft to Year 2008 pp. xxiv-xxv.
istration, November 1978). (Hereafter cited as “Lockheed, ‘Ibid., p. xxv.
CLASS.”) ‘Ibid., p. xxvii.
In order to achieve a manufacturer’s return on Lockheed calculated the payload which max-
investment (ROI) of 15 percent while maximiz- imized air carrier profits assuming no constraint
ing the airlines’ ROI, it was determined that the on manufacturer’s ROI. For 1990 this was esti-
long-range dedicated aircraft should have a pay- mated to be 330,000 lb, as compared to 225,000
load of 150,000 lb, and the short-range, a pay- lb for the current 747-200F freighter. It was
load of 100,000 lb. The airline ROI was rel- estimated there would be a demand for 270 such
atively insensitive to payload in the cases as- airplanes in 1990 and over 480 in 2000. Air cargo
sumed, however, because the payload could be rate reductions of up to 45 percent were esti-
increased to 330,000 lb for the long-range and mated to be possible. These estimates, however,
220,000 lb for the short-range with only a not only assume concomitant improvements in
l-percent decrease of airline ROI.9 S u c h terminal operations, but also postulate an in-
dedicated freighters could reduce aircraft oper- crease in air cargo demand of over 250 percent in
ating costs per trip (direct operating cost— response to the 45 percent rate decrease. In addi-
DOC—less depreciation and insurance) by an tion, the phase-out of all other aircraft is as-
estimated 43 percent below current wide sumed. 12
bodies. 10 In combination with other improve-
Thus, while there appears to be some uncer-
ments, such as containerization and mechanized
tainty about the optimum payload for a dedi-
terminals, shippers could gradually achieve
cated air freighter, Douglas and Lockheed agree
overall savings of roughly 20 percent over the
that substantial cost savings and rate reductions
1978-2000 period. ’
could result. These findings, however, are ex-
tremely sensitive to assumptions about fuel and
labor costs and, most particularly, to growth in
‘Ibid., pp. xxxiv-xxxv.
demand for air cargo services. Further, it ignores
‘“Ibid., p. xxix. the competitive situation brought about by the
‘lAllen H. Whitehead, Jr., and William H. Kuhlman, “Demand lower capital costs of future derivative air cargo
for Large Freighter Aircraft as Projected in the NASA Cargo/
Logistics Airlift Systems Studies, ” NASA Technical Memorandum
aircraft.
80074 (Hampton, Va.: Langley Research Center, National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, April 1979), p. 6. ‘zLockheed, CLASS Executive Summary, pp. 27-32.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A

DEDICATED AIR FREIGHTER
In summary, the advantage of the dedicated that airplane. 13 Such a high overhead raises the
air freighter is that it can be designed very specif- price of the airplane and its DOC (because of de-
ically for air freight demand, providing the type preciation and insurance costs) and increases the
of loading and unloading, flooring, fuselage financial risks to investors, especially since it
configuration, pressurization, etc., which is op- would be competing with derivatives which
timal for its contents. Furthermore, given that it have much smaller development costs per unit
is unlikely to be built before the 1990’s, it can and which themselves have incorporated some
make full use of NASA’s ACEE results, with the of the cost-reducing technology.
potential of significantly lowering operating
A 1979 NASA analysis suggests that the sig-
costs and fuel usage.
nificantly lower purchase price for the deriva-
A major disadvantage of the dedicated air “U.S. National Defense Transportation Association, Military
freighter would be that the estimated $2 billion Airlift Committee, An Executive Report on the Potential for a
]oint Commercial Military Air Cargo System Development
to $2.5 billion development cost (1976 dollars) (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 29, 1977), p. 47. (Hereafter cited as
would have to be absorbed solely by the sales of “NDTA, Executive Report.”)
Ch. 3—Future Air Cargo Aircraft ● 25
tives would overshadow the economic benefits means of reducing risk. Since all-cargo airplanes
of the dedicated aircraft. 14 Apparently having form a very small percent of the carrier fleet, this
come to the same conclusion, manufacturers are would be an extreme example of the tail wagging
reluctant to undertake development of a dedi- the dog. It is much more likely that an all-cargo
cated air freighter unless there is some way to airplane would be derived from a passenger air-
reduce the risk. plane which incorporates all ACEE technolog-
ical improvements. However, assuming favor-
Some planners have spoken of a passenger de-
able growth in air cargo, there is increasing in-
rivative of the dedicated air freighter as one
. — — centive for aircraft designers to take cargo needs
“William D. Conner, and John C. Vaughn, III, “Multi-role into account when designing new passenger air-
Cargo Aircraft Options and Configurations, ” NASA Technical craft.
Memorandum 80177 (Hampton, Va.: Langley Research Center,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, October 1979),
p. 3.
A JOINT MILITARY-CIVIL CARGO AIRPLANE

The Department of Defense (DOD) perceives order to increase the number built, and thereby
a shortfall in military airlift capability which will reduce unit costs.
gradually worsen as the Army moves toward the
The 1977 Executive Report of the Military
use of larger and heavier vehicles. DOD wants
Airlift Committee of the National Defense
the capability to react more quickly to overseas
Transportation Association estimated it would
emergencies and to move equipment from one
still cost over $11 billion to produce 200
battle zone to another as needed.
ACMAs, despite some cost savings achieved
There are several alternatives for making up through design compromises to meet civilian
the described shortfall in airlift capacity. One needs. However, they estimated that 80 percent
option would be to purchase an aircraft designed of the 200 airplanes could be purchased by the
exclusively to meet military needs. The cost of commercial air carriers at a cost of $50 million
procuring 200 such vehicles with a payload of each, or a price subsidy of $7 million apiece
350,000 lb was estimated in 1977 to be in the (1976 dollars) to cover decreased payload and
range of $12 billion in 1976 dollars (about $60 increased operating cost. The cost to the military
million per aircraft). 15 was estimated to total approximately $3 billion,
a savings of some $9 billion over the cost of pro-
An alternative, longer range option is a joint
curing 200 aircraft that might lie idle much of the
military-civil airlift vehicle, which would be
time waiting for a crisis to develop. 1 6
produced in two versions—a military version
and a civilian version. Originally designed as the The Air Force has funded Boeing, Lockheed,
C-XX, it has recently been renamed the Ad- and Douglas to look more closely at airplane
vanced Technology Civil Military Aircraft designs and to anticipate the penalties to be in-
(ACMA). The civilian version would include a curred by a joint design. Douglas developed a
reinforced floor and other special features so design for a 200,00()-lb” payload aircraft with a
that it could serve as part of the Civil Reserve conversion kit to convert a CRAF airplane for
Air Fleet (CRAF). This could also reduce the military use. The lower recommended payload
number of required military ACMAS. The Mili- was based on the contractor’s estimate of the
tary Airlift Command has also considered the best commercial market. The conversion kit in-
feasibility of a commercial passenger version in cludes a heavy military floor for installation on
“NDTA, Executive Report, pp. 14, 20. “Ibid., pp. 61-62.

top of the original floor as well as extra floor major problem, because accommodating a wide
bracing, a front drive-in ramp, and landing gear variety of potential commercial customers, each
conversion components that provide kneeling with their own views, is inconsistent with tradi-
capability. 17 The conversion was estimated to tional military purchase procedures. Previous
take about 24 hours to complete. 18 attempts at interagency cooperative develop-
ment of a joint military/civil cargo aircraft have
The civilian version of the ACMA aircraft
not been successful. The Air Force’s C-141 is a
would weigh approximately 6,500 lb more than
primary example of such a developmental effort;
a fully dedicated commercial freighter. The
there appeared in the beginning to be enough
ACMAs purchased by the military would weigh
commonality of military/civil aircraft require-
approximately 6,8oo lb less than those civil
ments to justify a cooperative effort. The Federal
reserve aircraft brought up to military standards
Aviation Administration consulted with pro-
through the kit modification approach. l9 Thus,
spective commercial users of the aircraft and
this ACMA concept involves a weight penalty
worked closely with the Air Force in certificating
for both its civil and military applications.
the plane for civil air operations. Nevertheless,
However, advanced technology could greatly
only the military purchased the aircraft. 23 While
reduce airplane size and weight compared to
there is general agreement that a joint effort
current technology. It has been estimated that
makes sense, there is great skepticism on the
operating weight and takeoff gross weight of a
commercial side that it would work to their ad-
dedicated ACMA freighter would be only 65
vantage in practice.
percent and 76 percent of the corresponding
weights for a current technology freighter hav- A recent development could have a significant
ing the same payload, range, cruise speed, and impact on the ACMA program. The Air Force
field length.20 has been directed to cancel its existing program
to develop a tactical airlifter and to plan a new
Lockheed’s ACMA design was considerably
strategic airlifter, the CX, having some tactical
larger, having a payload in the range of 400,000
capability. The emphasis is on developing an
l b .21 The contractor estimated a 34-percent
aircraft which will be in operation earlier than
reduction in DOC over the B-747, at a range of
the ACMA. A CX task force is currently work-
3,5oo nautical miles, and a 5&percent decrease
ing to determine the specifications of the air-
in fuel consumption .22
plane. It seems likely that a CX would be a de-
One question to be answered if an ACMA rivative of an existing aircraft. The effects of the
were to be developed is what organization CX program on the proposed ACMA program
would be responsible for its production. This is a are uncertain at present, and would not be clar-
ified until the CX is better defined. If the CX pro-
“E. A. Barber, R. J. Marhefka, and D. G. Blattner, “Prospects
for Commercial Commonality in Military Transport, ” presented gram is implemented, the most likely effect
at AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology Meeting, Aug. 21-23, would be to delay consideration of the
1978, p. 10. A C M A .24
1’Ibid., p. 10.
“Ibid., p. 11.
‘“ Ibid., pp. 11-21.
“W. T. Mikolowky, et al., Lockheed Aircraft Co., “Identifying Z3D H ~her, Suney of institutional Mechanisms Within the
Desirable Designs Features for the C-XX Aircraft: A Systems Ap- Federal Government for Cooperative Development of Mil-
proach,” presented at the AIAA Aircraft Systems and Technology itary\CiviZian Transport Aircraft (Arlington, Va.: Analytic Serv-
Meeting, Aug. 20-22, 1979, p. 4. ices, Inc., April 1972), p. 4.
“Ibid., p. 9. *’Ibid.
Ch. 3—Future Air Cargo Aircraft . 27
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT

One advantage of a joint development is that each airplane would have to carry some weight
the development costs would be shared by the which it would not carry if it were independent-
civil and military sectors, and the number of air- ly designed. This penalty weight reduces the
planes required by the military could be de- payload and the profitability of the commercial
creased by the number of CRAF airplanes pur- version. MAC proposes to compensate for this
chased by air carriers and available to the mili- through either a transfer payment at purchase,
tary in case of emergency. or an operating penalty compensation payment,
or both.
There are a number of potential disadvan-
tages, including the constraints imposed by joint Perhaps most important, it is not clear that
development, the penalties that would be in- there will be a sufficient market for the civil ver-
curred by both civil and military airplanes, and sion or that it will be cost competitive with de-
the difficulty in finding an organizational struc- rivatives of future passenger aircraft. Finally, the
ture that permits their reconciliation. Certain advent of the CX program renders the timing of
features suitable to a military aircraft would the ACMA program uncertain. The future of the
have to be discarded, for example, because they ACMA program cannot be addressed until the
are incompatible with a civil freighter. Also, details of the CX program have been agreed on.
Chapter 4
GROUND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

Chapter 4
GROUND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

There is a widely held point of view in the in- minal costs, have been computed to vary from a
dustry that air cargo’s competition for increased high of 83 percent for flight lengths of 400 miles
volume and market share could be decided more to 33 percent for a stage length of 4,OOO miles. 1
by how well it performs on the ground than in The high percentage cost of ground operations
the air. The ground side support systems so im- for shorter trips is particularly significant, since
portant to the future of air cargo include: 1) air- it is in these domestic trips where air cargo con-
port terminal operations, and 2) pickup and de- fronts some of its strongest competition from
livery services. Cargo must be picked up at the surface modes.
origin of the trip (usually by truck) and
delivered to the airport. At the terminal cargo
must be transferred from truck to aircraft, air-
craft to aircraft, or from aircraft to truck. Cargo
is offloaded, weighed if necessary, and sorted by
destination. The necessary airbills and other per-
tinent forms move with the shipment.
Average terminal costs for processing bulk
cargo, as a percentage of total line haul plus ter-
AIR TERMINAL SPACE LIMITATIONS

Several of the major air cargo terminals are decrease because trucks and parcels would go to
approaching the limits of their capacity with the off site terminals.
current operations and equipment, thus creating
While some forwarders and all-cargo carriers
a major problem for air cargo carriers. 2 It would
favor this option, combination carriers generally
be difficult to expand many of these terminals,
consider their passenger and freight operations
given the lack of available land. Two options
to be too closely integrated to have separate ter-
suggested to accommodate future increases in air
minals. These combination carriers believe they
freight traffic are: 1 ) off site bulk freight process-
would need to duplicate some of their functions,
ing, and 2) all-cargo airports. 3
equipment, and personnel.
Offsite bulk freight processing terminals move
The off site bulk freight processing terminal is
the freight consolidation operations away from
of interest if there is a significant percentage of
the crowded airport areas, to less crowded, less
cargo not containerized by the shipper. The fa-
expensive quarters. Consolidated freight could
cility could be used by the forwarder or the air-
be moved back to the airport in containers or
line to containerize cargo prior to the airport ter-
special bins. The airport area could be used for
minal operation.
aircraft loading and a limited amount of con-
tainer storage and staging functions. Terminal The all-cargo airport would, as the name im-
productivity would increase because of the plies, be entirely devoted to the handling of
greater use of containers, and congestion would cargo. Given the difficulty of developing any
2
major new airports, this must be regarded as
Nawal K. Taneja, The U. S. Air-freight Industry (Lexington,
Mass.: Lexington Books, 1979), p. 206.
only a remote possibility. The Airport and Air-
1bid., p. 212.
3
ways Development and Revenue Act of 1970
31
made funds available for construction of new ports. The National Aeronautics and Space Ad-
airports, but of the 85 new airports built during ministration (NASA) and the Air Force experi-
the first 5 years, all but three were for the use of mented with this idea at one Air Force base that
general aviation exclusively.4 Citizen opposition was still in use but underutilized. The experi-
to major new airports continues to be a very po- ment was not successful because the demands of
tent and effective force. the Air Force mission compromised the kinds of
services to the commercial tenants which the
It might be possible to use abandoned or un- management of a commercial airport could pro-
derutilized military airports as all-cargo air- vide. 5
4
Jeff Cochran, Associate Administrator for Engineering and ‘Operations Research, Inc., ]oint Tenancy for Cargo Airports,
Development, Federal Aviation Administration, presentation prepared by M. N. McDermott, under NASA contract No.
before the National Academy of Sciences. NASW-2961 (Washington, D. C.: ORI, July 1977).
MECHANIZATION AND CONTAINERIZATION

One promising long-range option for allevi- straddle lifts, illustrated in figure 4. Figure 5
ating the space problem at air terminals is mech- shows two such containers stowed in a 747.
anization. A major concern of terminal man- Other mobile systems are commonly used for
agers is to define the appropriate type of mech- loading freight on aircraft. Such mobile equip-
anization and the optimum rate at which it ment is less costly, and more cost effective for
should be introduced into the cargo handling lower cargo volumes than is a fixed system.
system. The desirable degree of mechanization
As the volume and degree of unitization in-
depends on the volume of cargo, the degree of
creases, the cost effectiveness of fixed mecha-
unitization (e. g., palletization or containeriza-
nized systems, both for sorting and for loading,
tion) and the uniformity of shipments with re- increases. Assuming an annual air cargo growth
spect to volume, shape, and weight. Today only rate of 8 percent, an increasing number of sys-
a handful of heavily utilized terminals have
tems are likely to become heavily mechanized in
either the volume or the size and type of ship-
the future. 6 A NASA CLASS study forecasts
ments to warrant extensive mechanization.
that growth will initially be handled by increas-
Sorting of shipments is still done manually at ing the efficiency of existing systems along with
most terminals, partly because of the large varia- increased use of containers loaded by the shipper
tion in package size. To reduce labor cost and or forwarder. For example, with a modest in-
save space, a number of carriers have automated vestment, the equipment now widely used in ter-
these cargo handling functions at the major minals to handle large containers can be readily
hubs. The success of this automation has been adapted to handle 3-meter containers and
mixed. In the late 1960’s, TWA automated its smaller. This could allow for over a fourfold in-
cargo facilities in St. Louis airport so extensively crease in terminal throughput, with a resulting
that a failure in one component usually tied up potential reduction in capital investment per
the whole system, and there was also no room to container of 72 percent. To handle the popular
make repairs. On the other hand, a number of 6-meter containers, a relatively advanced ter-
European carriers have extensively automated minal capable of a ninefold increase over current
their air freight operations with apparent suc- processing levels could be achieved with cur-
cess, although actual sorting decisions are still rently available technology. G
made by a human operator.
One particularly useful technology for high
Varying degrees of mechanization are ap- volume situations is the elevating transfer vehi-
propriate dependent on shipments. At the lower cle (ETV) and stacker system which allows
end of the spectrum, there are specially adapted
forklifts for handling containers. There are also
4—Ground Support Systems • 33
— ——-— — — — —
41
Figure 4.—Straddle Lift for 6. Meter or Large CoI~ aliler
# olu(~le // ;jrepdred by R D E3u rby and W H

SOURCE McDonnell Douglas Corporation, Douglas Aircraft Company , Cargo logistics Airlift Systems 5 If ‘M ~ S ‘ (1 , ~( . t,.
Spa{ *> ~~ tin I n I st rat I I n )C tober 1978) p 18 ~
Kuhlman, under NASA contract 1-14948 (Hampton Va. Langley Research Center, National
Figure 5.–Side-By-Side Loading Capability of Intermodel Containers in the B-747F
SOURCES: Nawal K. Taneja The u S , 1‘[~ JIIFI I 1~ ~u ,trv, (Lexington Mass I C>X 1{’gl II BJU ~ ‘9) , 19>
Seaboard World AI I I Ines
multilevel storage of containers where vertical expected to have implemented even more ad-
space is not a restriction (see fig. 6). Container vanced systems capable of handling larger and
weight reduces the useful payload of the aircraft, heavier containers than the 3- and 6-meter con-
however, and there is a tradeoff between containers preferred now. Figure 7 illustrates a
tainer strength—needed for stacking—and the system which could increase the throughput of
extra weight required to achieve stacking containers nearly 20 times over today’s level.
strength.
Cargo volume is the major determinant of
Degree of Mechanization cargo terminal cost. As volume increases it is
easier to justify systems that can dramatically
In the late 1980’s, if growth rates of the past reduce cost as well as provide faster and surer
decade continue, some airport terminals can be service.
Figure 6.— High Mechanization Elevating Transfer Vehicle (ETV)
SOURCE McDonnell Douglas Corp , Douglas Aircraft Co., Cargo Logistics Airlift System Study (CLASS), Volume ///, prepared by R. D. Burby and W. H Kuhlman, under
NASA contract No 1-14948 (Hampton, Va : Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, October 1978), p 185.
At each stage, mechanization must be de- packages on call throughout the’ day. Alter the
signed carefully to minimize breakdowns and to close of business, the parcels are brought to the
allow the rest of the system to continue to airport stations and flown to Memphis is, Term.
operate in case of a breakdown in one compo- At Memphis there is a quarter-mile long sorting
nent. Backup systems are also highly desirable. facility with a conveyor system capable of han-
As the TWA case showed, it is possible to install dling 130,000 parcels per night. This will expand
systems too advanced for conditions, for- vol- to 150,000 per night by December 1981. The
ume requirements, or for the technological state contents of arriving planes are unloaded into
of the art. bins that are placed in a series of conveyor belts
and sorted by destination. Containers are direct-
An example of a very successful high volume
ly offloaded or onloaded but their contents may
operation that uses little in the way of mech-
be hand sorted.
anization other than conveyor belts is that of the
Federal Express Corp., which specializes in pro- When the parcels are sorted, the outbound
viding overnight service for small parcels. 7 It has shipments are weighed, and the aircraft are
over 1,000 radio-dispatched trucks that collect loaded and dispatched. This entire process takes
—. about 6 hours from the time the first airplane ar-
‘Yupo Chan, and Ronny J. Ponder, “The Small Package Air rives until the last departs. More importantly,
Freight Industry in the United States: A Review of the Federal Ex-
press Experience, ” Trumportatlo)l Reseurc/], September 1979, pp. the time from the arrival of the last airplane to
221-229. the departure of the first is only 1/1 2 hours. Fed-
eral Express now claims to achieve better than a single level ETV system saves nothing in unit
99 percent overnight delivery service rate for the cost, but the double and triple level ETV systems
small high-priority parcels that comprise the save roughly 20 percent and 30 percent, respec-
bulk of its cargo. Although Federal Express is tively.
now introducing a higher level of mechaniza- With 90 percent off-airport containerization,
tion, this operation serves as a reminder that these terminal improvements could reduce in-
mechanization is not an end in itself, but merely direct operating costs by as much as 30 percent,
one way to get a job done. with a resulting potential overall system rate
reduction of up to 11 percent per air cargo ship-
Degree of Containerization ment. 8
Virtually all highly mechanized systems de- Flexibility to adjust the size of the containers
pend on containerization. Several methods of appears desirable. Currently containers of gen-
assuring a high level of containerization have eral cargo air freight are on the average only 54
been proposed including cost and service incen- percent full. g This reduces the efficiency of both
tives to shippers and forwarders that contain- the containers and the cargo aircraft themselves,
erize, thus passing on some of the savings from which frequently “cube out” rather than “weigh
the mechanized system. Shippers who do not out” — i. e., the available space in the aircraft is
containerize could use a forwarder who does. filled before its weight limit is reached. Use of
The air carrier can also containerize bulk cargo. containers of excessive size tends to exacerbate
Although there is a cost to containerize, it is gen- this situation, A modular container system has
erally small compared to the savings in han- been proposed to minimize this problem. The
dling. system consists of a standard 8 by 8 by 20 feet
Table 2 contains estimates from a NASA intermodal container but made up of modules of
study of the cargo handling cost per pallet or 40 by 48 by 48 inches, which could be connected
container under varying conditions of storage together to form the standard container or some
and handling. This analysis assumes that each container of intermediate size (see fig. 8). The
system operates at capacity. It can be seen that design also allows complete disassembly for
cutting storage time in half for imports could empty return. Boeing is also designing a version
save nearly 20 percent. Maintaining the shorter of this same concept.
storage time while going from the current 40 per-
cent average containerization rate to 70 percent Computerization
would save an additional 16 percent; going to As the degree of mechanization increases, the
100 percent containerization would save over 33 degree of computerization is likely to increase as
percent with no change in system. Using the well. The basic functions of a computerized sys-
tem are to generate the necessary documents, in-
Table 2.—Relative Cost Per Unit Loading Devicea cluding intermodal waybills, to keep track of the
Under Varying Conditions
shipments, and to trace lost shipments. How-
Degree of International Type of cargo ever, many other management functions—such
container- import storage handling Relative as billing and settlement, cargo space allocation,
ization time system cost
cargo scheduling and counting, and market-
40 ”/0 3 day Current 100 0/0
1.5 day Current 81 .60/0
ing—can be aided by manipulation of the basic
40 ”/0
70 ”/0 1.5 day Current 75.30/0 data. Many carriers are already operating so-
100 ”/0 3 day Current 67.70/o phisticated c o m p u t e r i zed documentation
100 ”/0 1.5 day Current 57.7 “/0
s y s t e m s . —0
100 ”/0 1.5 day Single level ETV 59.90/0
100 ”/0 1.5 day Double level ETV 38.50/o ‘Allen H. Whitehead, and William H. Kuhlman, “Demand for
1000/0 1.5 day Triple level ETV 28.40/o Large Freighter Aircraft as Projected by the NASA Cargo / Logis-
a
tics Airlift System Study,” NASA Technical Memorandum 80074
e.g. Pallet or container (Hampton, Va.: Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics
SOURCE McDonnell Douglas Corp , Douglas Aircraft Co. Cargo Logistics Air- and Space Administration, April 1979), fig. 3.
lift Systems Study (CLASS), Volume ///, prepared by R D Burby and
W H Kuhlman, under NASA contract No NAS1.14948 (Hampton, Va. ‘Taneja, op. cit., p. 212.
10
Langley Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space Adminis- Douglas, CLASS, Volume 111, pp. 188-189; Lockheed, CLASS,
tration, October 1978) P 222 Volume 1, pp. 1-93.
Ch. 4—Ground Support Systems ● 37
Figure 8.— Modular Intermodal Container Concept Modcon Array and Adapter
SOURCE J L Weingarten, Closing the Air Transport Gap on Intermodal Containers, Publication 73-1 CT-30
(New York American Society of Mechanical Engineers, May 1973), p.6
PICKUP AND DELlVERY

Because virtually every air shipment begins methods, averaged over the 20 largest U.S.
and ends as a truck movement, it is necessary to cities, is $3.35/100 lb at each end of the move-
improve the interface between truck and the ter- ment. This amounts to $134/ton, which when
minal. Although intermodal containers designed added to the computed average airport-to-air-
to be used by both airplanes and trucks involve port cost of $175/ton yields a total of $309/ton.
some weight penalties, the productivity im- The use of an advanced technology aircraft and
provement resulting from using containers is intermodal containers reduces the PUD cost to
substantial. A study done in Europe found that $86 and the airport-to-airport cost to $122, for a
labor productivity increased from 421 lb per total cost of $208/ton. If a truckload-sized con-
man-hour for handling loose freight to 2,205 lb tainer is used, the costs reduce to $25/ton PUD,
per man-hour for handling pallets or containers $7/ton container cost, and $122/ton airport-to-
specifically designed for aircraft, an increase of airport cost, for a total of $154/ton total. Thus
423 percent. Productivity increased to 4,778 lb total costs might be halved with advanced, inter-
per man-hour when intermodal containers were modal truckload containers. 12
used, an additional increase of 117 percent. 11
‘2Lockheed-Georgia Co., (-tlr<qo LCl<qI+tJ~-> ,4 It IJII .Su.t[,~~I~ stIi~iu
According to a Lockheed-Georgia study, the ((-1 ASS) lr[III//~I~T 1 p r e p a r e d b}~ 1, M, N o r m a n , R . ]). FIertder-
pickup and delivery (PUD) cost for shipment w)n, F. C, Mamy, and R. P, Tuttle, under N A S A contract N(~.
sizes less than 1,000 lb, using conventional NAS1-1467 (Hamptc~n, Va.: Lang]e> Rewarch C e n t e r , Nati(~nial
Aeronautics and Space Admini+trationf November 1Q78), pp. S - S 3
‘‘Taneja, op. cit., p, 212 to 5-55,
Chapter 5
AIR CARGO OPERATING

RESTRICTIONS
Chapter 5
AIR CARGO OPERATING RESTRICTIONS

With passage of air cargo deregulation in incidental to their shipment by air. Several air
1977, most of the controls governing the air side carriers are already taking advantage of this new
of domestic freight movements were lifted, in- intermodal flexibility to provide the shipper
cluding tariff controls, market entry restrictions, single carrier integrated service.
and limitations on the payload of aircraft flown
Air cargo carriers continue to be adversely af-
by the express package delivery carriers.
fected by airport curfews and other operating re-
Not until passage of the Motor Carrier Act of strictions imposed by some airports in this coun-
1980, however, were air cargo carriers and for- try and by governments abroad. However, the
warders allowed the unrestricted right to per- only Federal regulations of major consequence
form their own pickup and delivery services. In still in place following air cargo deregulation
the past, they were only allowed to operate their concerned aircraft safety and noise standards,
trucks for collection and distribution within 35 both promulgated by the Federal Aviation Ad-
miles of the airport. As a direct consequence of ministration (FAA). While regulation of aircraft
this restriction, air cargo carriers were forced to safety is a widely accepted practice, aircraft
use air links in short hauls where trucks would noise standards have been far more controver-
have been more efficient. Air carrier-owned sial. As discussed below, these noise standards
trucks are now allowed to operate anywhere, as have led to major, costly changes in the air cargo
long as the movement of goods on the ground is fleet.
FEDERAL NOISE REGULATION

At the Federal level, the Environmental Pro- ting their noncomplying aircraft with sound-
tection Agency (EPA) is responsible for develop- absorbing materials, replacing the engines, or
ing transportation noise programs. EPA recom- replacing the aircraft.
mends noise standards to the FAA, which can
Amendments to FAR 36 in March 1977 a n d
either adopt them or develop its own. In 1969,
April 1978 require that the next generation of
the FAA promulgated part 36 of the Federal Avi-
aircraft meet more stringent noise standards
ation Regulations (FAR 36), stating Federal air-
craft noise regulations. These regulations (stage 3 noise limits). These new standards are
not presently retroactive to the types of aircraft
originally set noise limits for newly designed
already certificated.
civil turbojet aircraft over 75, OOO lb which first
went into production after 1969 (these included Aircraft noise regulations are controversial,
the DC-10, L 1011, B-747-200, and A-300, because the measurement of actual noise impacts
among others). In 1973, the FAA extended FAR is highly subjective and because the cost of com-
36 to include new production units of older air- pliance will be high. The airlines do not want to
craft such as the 707, 727, 737, DC-8, DC-9, and spend an estimated $4OO million to retrofit and
most business jets. reengine the 1,600 noncomplying aircraft now in
service in order to meet the 1985 deadline. They
In December 1976, the FAA promulgated FAR
would prefer to graduall y replace these with
91 which required virtually the whole fleet of
new-technology aircraft that would not only be
jets over 75, OOO lb (including previously exempt
aircraft) to meet FAR 36 noise standards by “’Airlines Face Huge Bills for Controlling Noise, Pollution, ” Air
1985. Airlines were given the option of retrofit- Transport World, July 1978, p. 16.
41
quieter, but would also be more fuel efficient prevent the FAA from imposing more stringent
and would comply with pollutant emissions noise standards. These have been offset by a
standards. Because an airplane’s operating strong DOT stance favoring current noise rules.
lifetime is at least 10 to 15 years, and in some The final noise control bill, 3 however, was a
cases up to 30 years, most of the noncomplying compromise. For example, it requires that all
aircraft would not be subject to normal replace- four-engine aircraft comply with FAA FAR 36,
ment before the 1985 deadline. In fact, some but it allows operations of noncomplying two-
observers estimate that if it were not for the pro- engine jets for an additional year if a contract for
visions of FAR 36 standards, 60 percent of the a stage 3 replacement has been signed by
present noncomplying fleet could still be in January 1, 1983. At least one major carrier has
operation in 1990. The costs for accelerated indicated it may discontinue its all-cargo service
replacement of these aircraft have been esti- rather than undertake the expense of retrofitting
mated as high as $8 billion. 2 its existing fleet or purchasing new aircraft.
There have been attempts in Congress to
delay the existing compliance deadline and to
——- —-— 3
Aviation Safety and Aircraft Noise Abatement Act of 1979,
‘Ibid. Public Law 96-193.
AIRPORT OPERATING RESTRICTIONS

Airport operators, under the FAA’s “Aviation areas, or rotational runway programs which dis-
Noise Abatement Policy,14 have a responsibility perse the noise equally over several populated
to help manage noise through proper location areas,
and design of airports, cooperation with local
A substantial number of airports throughout
authorities to insure that surrounding land is
the world have imposed some kind of restric-
reserved for compatible uses, and construction
tions on airport operations in order to reduce
of noise-reducing barriers.
noise. As can be seen in table 3, of the 1 4 0
In various locations, flight operation pro- respondents to a survey by the Airport Oper-
cedures have been modified to reduce noise. ators’ Council International, 85 reported having
Some airports impose limits on ground opera- some sort of noise abatement program.
tions, for example designating permissible areas
and times for engine runups of jet planes. Table 3.—Airport Operating Restrictions, 1979
Another alternative is to require minimum alti-
tudes or use of stepped approaches and steep Total Number with
airports noise abatement
climbouts. Another strategy is to prescribe pre- Type of airport responding programs
ferred runways and approach paths which will Large U.S. hubs . . . . . . . . . 24 15
minimize the impacts of noise on populated All other U.S. airports ., . . 76 35
Large foreign hubs . . . . . . 40 35
“’Aviation Noise Abatement Policy” (Washingtonr D. C.: U.S. SOURCE: Report on Aircraft Noise Reduction Operating Procedures (Washing-
Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, 1976). ton, D. C.: Airport Operators Council International, 1979).
NIGHT CURFEWS
The most drastic airport operating restriction noise is considered more annoying during these
is prohibiting the operation of jet aircraft during quiet hours. Thus, at first glance, a night curfew
certain hours of the night. Although an aircraft seems a logical way to greatly improve the noise
is no noisier at night than it is during the day, the environment around an airport. Only three U.S.
Ch. 5—Air Cargo Operating Restrictions ● 43
airports in the top 25 by air cargo tonnage have Massachusetts Port Authority found that the
imposed curfews: Minneapolis/St. Paul (Num- later night flights were more economically suc-
ber 18), Washington National (Number 21), and cessful than earlier ones. An experiment to in-
Baltimore-Washington International (Number duce shippers to use earlier flights by offering
23). Internationally, 15 major airports have them lower rates was not successful.8
curfews.
An airport curfew could result in delays of 12
The right of a U.S. community to curfew air to 36 hours for some of these perishable or high-
operations has often been contested in the value goods. Shipments arriving at the airport
courts, Although some local ordinances con- after curfew would be held overnight and sent
trolling aircraft have been upheld, many have off the next morning. In many cases they would
been declared unconstitutional because they arrive too late for that day’s market and would
posed a threat to interstate commerce and in- remain in storage until the following morning.
fringed on the Federal Government’s ability to Such a delay would eliminate air express services
regulate the airways. Many of the existing cur- almost totally, and severely cut the demand for
fews are, in fact, voluntary agreements between air movements of produce, such as cut flowers,
the airport authority and the carriers, arrived at which are not refrigerated when sent by air. The
in an effort to avoid litigation or bad publicity. U.S. Government is a major user of nighttime
air cargo service with about 60 percent of inter-
Night curfews actually disrupt only a small
city mail planned for overnight delivery by air. 9
amount of an airport’s total daily activity—from
A study for the Massachusetts Port Authority
5 to 10 percent of takeoffs and landings for most
found that even with optimum rescheduling, 6
airports (Honolulu is exceptional in that 16 to 24
to 8 percent of the mail handled in Boston would
percent of its traffic is during late night hours).5
be subject to delays if an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.
However, in the case of air cargo, night curfews
curfew were imposed. 10
are of particular concern because so much cargo
is moved at night; the hours of 11 p.m. and 6 Curfews at a major airport could have a
a.m. are often referred to as “prime-time lift. ” significant effect because of the highly concen-
About 41 percent of San Francisco’s all-cargo trated nature of the air freight industry. Only 23
operations take place between 10 p.m. and 6 U.S. cities have daily scheduled freighter service
a.m.’ At JFK and Newark Airports in 1977, 35 (not counting express service), and of these, five
percent of all freight moved between 10 p.m. major airports handled more than half of the
and 7 a.m.; 94 percent of this was on all-cargo total cargo tons. 11 Closing even one major air-
flights. ’ port at night would greatly affect the others. For
example a 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. curfew in New York
Many shippers have come to depend on night-
would impose an unintentional 2:30 p.m. to
time air cargo service for movement of high-
10:30 p.m. curfew on takeoffs of New York-
value or perishable goods. Shippers tender
bound aircraft in Los Angeles. In international
goods to the forwarder or carrier toward the
travel, because of the Hong Kong and Tokyo
close of the business day so that they can be
curfews, around the world flight beginning in
shipped at night and be available at their
New York takes 45 hours. A curfew added at
destination in time for the next day’s market.
one other stop—say Karachi or Delhi—adds 21
From the shipper’s point of view, the later the
more hours to the trip. 12 Although the latter ex-
plane departs, the better. A study by the
——
‘Douglas A. Fisher, An Analysis of Airport Curfews and Their ‘Fisher, op. cit., p. 113.
impact on Airline and Air Cargo Operations, dissertation, Grad- ‘U.S. Postal Service, Air Transportation Division, telephone in-
uate School of Business, Indiana University, 1977, p. 1. terview, Jan. 14, 1980.
6
Ibid. IO
Guy Goodman, PotentiaJ Effects of Curfews on Scheduling
‘John E. Wesler, “Keynote Speech,” in Raymond A. Ausrotas and Delays, SAE Technical Paper Series No. 780545 (Warrendale,
and Nawald K. Taneja (eds. ), Air Freight; The Problems of Air- Pa.: Society of Automotive Engineers, 1978), p. 6.
port Restrictions, FTL report No. R79-1 (Cambridge, Mass: Flight ‘ ‘Air Cargo Statistics, U S. Scheduled Airlines, Total Industry,
Transportation Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Tech- 1978 (Washington, D. C.: Air Transport Association, 1978), p. 2.
nology, 1979), p. 42. “Goodman, op. cit., p. 6.
44 . Impact of Advanced Air Transport Technology
ample is a passenger flight, the effect on cargo ness, moves almost two-thirds of its traffic be-
flights, which tend to originate or end at night, tween 11 p.m. and 3 a.m. Many consider over-
would be more severe. night delivery to be a key selling point of air
freight forwarder’s service. 3
Economic Impacts of Curfews Boeing has estimated that in a “typical” in-
Night curfews can have adverse economic im- dustrial city like Philadelphia, Cleveland, or
pacts on shippers, freight forwarders, airlines, Minneapolis-St. Paul about 17 percent of air
the airport itself, and the local economy. Table 4 freight is curfew sensitive and that 10 percent of
summarizes estimated impacts for 1975 when an curfew-sensitive cargo would be lost totally if a
11 p.m. to 7 a . m . curfew was proposed for curfew were imposed; that is, the goods would
Boston’s Logan Field. As can be seen in the table, not be manufactured because they could not be
shippers would pay up to an additional $23 mil- distributed at a reasonable price. Assuming traf-
lion annually due to increased transportation fic of 50,000 tons of air cargo per year at a value
and warehousing costs. of $10/lb, this could mean a total of $17 million
in goods might not be made or sold because of
The types of shippers most affected by the the curfew. 14
curfew would be those specializing in perishable
or high-value goods. Some firms have central- The elimination of airport activity at night
ized their manufacturing and warehousing facili- would result in a loss of jobs in the airlines,
ties near a good airport and rely on air freight to freight forwarders, and the various airport con-
make overnight delivery of their products to cessions. According to a study by Guy Good-
customers or branch offices throughout the man, an estimated 1,114 jobs would be lost in
country. Delays resulting from curfews would Boston as a direct result of curfew, as shown in
cause severe disruption in these distribution pat- table 4.
terns, and might make it difficult for these firms In addition to these direct effects, indirect
to remain competitive with regional firms whose costs and multiplier effects are anticipated. The
factories are located close to retail markets. Boeing study, using a regional multiplier of 1.8,
Freight forwarding companies, which account ‘3 Fisher, op. cit., p. 121.
for over 40 percent of domestic air freight reve- “Raymond A. Ausrotas, and Nawal K. Taneja (eds. ), Air-
Freight: The Problems of Airport Restrictions, FTL report No.
nues, make extensive use of night flights. Emery R79-1 (Cambridge, Mass: Flight Transportation Laboratory,
Air Freight, the largest forwarder in the busi- Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1979), pp. 32-35.
Table 4.—Annual Direct Efforts on the New England Economy

of an 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. Curfew at Boston, Mass.
With minimum With schedules

rescheduling reoptimized
Shippers
Transportation, freight penalty (000) . . . . . . . $20,100 $18,600
Increased warehousing (000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,930 $2,620
Transferred warehouse jobs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 280
Airlines
Job loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468 244
Payroll loss (000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $8,882 $4,687
Freight forwarders
Job loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 53
Payroll loss (000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,584 $672
Concessionaires
Job loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Payroll loss (000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $589 $336
Passengers
Increased fares (000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,966 $1,966
SOURCE Guy Goodman, Potential Effects of Curfews on Scheduling and Delays, Technical paper series no 78045 (Warren-
dale. Pa Society of Automotive Engineers. 1978), P6
—.—
Ch. 5—Air Cargo Operating Restrictions ● 45
estimated that $30.6 million worth of business with their sleep actually went up. The third
would fail to be generated in the “typical” city round of interviews, conducted between a
because of a curfew.15 The Massachusetts study month and 6 weeks after the change, showed
estimated that $373 million in lost sales potential no significant changes compared with the first
and 13,058 jobs would ultimately be lost in New round. Overall, almost 56 percent of respond-
England in the event of an 8-hour curfew. 16 ents replied they had not noticed a change in the
number of flights; 20 percent noticed fewer; and
Benefits of Curfews 20 percent said they noticed more. Many of
those who reported noticing fewer flights were
Little research has been done on the benefits of aware of the new flight restrictions from
curfews for people living near airports. Studies newspapers or other sources.
of noise annoyance have found that interference
with listening and speaking is the most annoying The perceived benefit of reduced noise levels
aspect of aircraft noise, while interference with in this experiment was minimal. However, the
sleep and rest is second. It is generally assumed temporary discontinuation of all nighttime
that this annoyance would be greater at night flights at airports in Hong Kong and San Diego
when ambient noise levels are lower and aircraft to permit runway resurfacing was so popular
noise is more noticeable. with the public that they were turned into per-
manent curfews when the airports attempted to
On April 29, 1973, landing patterns at Los resume around-the-clock operations after the
Angeles International Airport were reversed be- work was completed.
tween 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. so that planes ap-
proached over Santa Monica Bay rather than The Federal Role
over populated areas to the east. This procedure
was followed for a year before further modifica- The FAA has the responsibility for regulating
tions were made. The change reduced noise ex- noise levels at their source—the aircraft them-
posure east of the airport by about 50 flights per selves. The local authorities at a particular air-
night out of an average 657 landings per 24-hour port have the responsibility for controlling the
day. Surveys were conducted in the high and noise levels at their airport.
moderate noise exposure zones immediately
The appropriate Federal role in the curfew
before, immediately after, and about one month
issue is not clearly defined. On the one hand, the
after the change in operations. 17 Before the
issue appears to be a local one—a conflict be-
change, 92 percent of the respondents in the
tween local home owners and their airport. On
high-exposure area reported some annoyance
the other hand, if local citizens are able to estab-
with aircraft noise: 90 percent of these said it in-
lish night curfews in one or more major air
terfered with listening to radio, TV, or hi-fi and
freight cities, they could essentially shut down
20 percent said it interfered with their sleep.
night cargo flights and create a massive change
Although the objectively measured change in in modal choices.
noise exposure seemed large—averaging around
In 1977 the Air Transport Association of
50 dB(A) at night as compared to around 70
America (ATA) petitioned the FAA to adopt
dB(A) before the change—little or no consistent
regulations governing airport noise abatement
change in response was found in the Los Angeles
plans. Essentially, the ATA petition called on
interviews. In the medium-exposure area, there
the FAA to utilize the provisions of the Federal
were slight decreases in reported annoyance
Aviation Act of 1958, as amended, to disap-
levels. In the high-exposure area, the number of
prove local noise abatement rules related to air
persons claiming that aircraft noise interfered
transportation, which were claimed to be:
— .
“Ibid. 1. inconsistent with the highest degree of safe-
“Goodman, op. cit., p. 6.
1
‘All survey results reported in S. Fidell and G. Jones, “Effects of ty in air commerce and air transportation;
Cessation of Late-Night Flights on an Airport Community, ” )o~(r- 2. inconsistent with the efficient utilization of
tIa~ of SouHd a)~d VI bmtI(>)I VO] 42, 1975, pp. 4 1 1 - 4 2 7 . navigable airspace;
—. —--
3. unduly burdensome to interstate or foreign riers by foreign governments. Some of the re-
commerce or unduly interfering with the strictions are regarded by U.S. carriers as clear-
national transportation system; cut attempts by foreign countries to inhibit com-
4. unjustly discriminatory. For example, a petition with their own national airlines. For ex-
ban on jet aircraft only would be discrim- ample, U.S. carriers report that one European
inatory, since some jets are quieter than country, which owned no 747 freighters, refused
some propeller aircraft; and landing rights to foreign 747 freighters until an
5. in conflict with the Federal Aviation Ad- arrangement was worked out to lease them a 747
ministration’s statutory regulatory author- for part of the week. Another European nation
ity. 18 insisted that an airline could only provide
pickup and delivery service in towns where it
The FAA has not taken the actions suggested
also offered passenger service. Since the local
by ATA, but it has challenged proposed airport
carrier served many more cities than the U.S.
plans through advisory opinions and statements
carrier, competition for cargo business was
in local public hearings. The FAA contends that
decidedly one-sided. In this particular instance,
the field of airport noise abatement has not been
the problem was overcome with U.S. Govern-
totally preempted, and that the Federal Govern-
ment assistance. In another example, one Asian
ment shares responsibility to some degree with
country requires elaborate cargo clearance pro-
State and local authorities. How these various
cedures for foreign carriers only that are both
responsibilities will be sorted out is still
costly and time-consuming. In another instance,
unresolved.
the national carrier is allotted prime terminal
Operating Restrictions Overseas space and is the only carrier allowed full control
of its freight from terminal to warehouse. These
The airport curfew is only one of several types constraints seriously jeopardize the economic
of operating restrictions imposed on U.S. car- viability of U.S. carriers in international service.
——
“Clifton F. Von Kann, “Keynote Speech, ” in Ausrotas and Continuing U.S. Government efforts appear
Taneja, Air Flight; The Problems, p. 52, needed in order to address such restrictions.
Chapter 6
LIGHTER-THAN-AIR VEHICLES
Chapter 6
LIGHTER-THAN-AIR VEHICLES’
Lighter-than-air vehicles (LTAs), or airships, of the largest non-rigid airships ever built (ZPG-
were very active from the first years of this cen- 3W) were completed in 1960 also by Goodyear.
tury until about 1960. During World War I, each
Rigid airships are built of a lightweight rigid
side operated about 100 airships. They ranged
structure with an outer fabric of treated cloth.
from the smaller (100,000 f t3 ) non-rigids to
The lifting gas is contained in several indepen
larger (2.5 million ft3) rigids. In 1933, the Good
dent gas-tight cells. In contrast, the non-rigid
year Zeppelin Corp. completed two rigid air-
airship consists merely of an envelope (hull)
ships, Akron and Macon, for the U.S. Navy;
typically of a coated fabric filled with a lifting
these were the largest airships built to that date,
gas and pressured slightly above that of the out-
and two of the largest airships ever built. 2 Four
. side atmosphere. Several air compartments
‘We wish to thank D. E. Williams of Goodyear Aerospace within the hull are used to maintain a constant
Corp. for his assistance in the preparation of this chapter.
2Goodyea r Aerospace Corp., Feasibility Stz/d.w [)~ Modcr/~ Air-
pressure and provide ballast by ducting air in
~lli~~s, L’(11 /// Hlstoric[?llv Ovcn~ieu] (Task I), p r e p a r e d by and out as needed.3
Gerald Faurote, NASA report No. CR-137692 (Moffett Field,
Calif.: Ames Research Center, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, August 1975), pp. 2-3, 3
1bid,, pp. 4-8.
4
LONG RANGE AIRSHIPS
Both rigid and non-rigid airships have been also had total operating costs per seat-mile be-
used extensively as long endurance/long-range tween one-half and one-third those of the Hin-
platforms to carry payloads which are essential- denburg. Thus, although the Hindenburg dis-
ly fixed (constant weight). Due to the difficulty aster and the approach of World War II has-
in managing excess buoyancy, applications with tened the end of even the commercial passenger
widely varying payload weights, such as cargo carrying airship operations, it is clear that the
transport, were not pursued; passenger service fundamental cause was the growing inability of
was considered more suitable. In addition, lim- the airship to compete economically with the
ited ability to exercise control at low speed com- airplane.
plicated ground handling and made terminal op-
The economic nonviability of the long-haul
erations cumbersome.
airship can be better understood by noting the
The rigid airship declined in popularity after standard computation of a vehicle’s productiv-
the Hindenburg disaster in 1937. No doubt the ity: payload by speed. The airplane came to far
disaster itself had an effect, but there were more surpass the airship’s speed; the present-day ratio
fundamental causes at work. In the 1930’s, the is roughly four to one for a wide-bodied jet ver-
airplane surpassed the airship in speed, produc- sus an airship. This means that a jet with the
tivity, operating cost, and even safety. In 1937, same payload as an airship can transport several
the most advanced passenger airplane, the times as much freight in the same time as the air-
DC-3, had double the cruising speed of the most ship (although less than fourfold because of the
advanced airship, the Hindenburg; the DC-3 terminal time at each end).
‘This discussion is based on Mark D. Ardema, “Economics o f The productivity difference is reflected in
Modern Long-Haul Cargo Airships, ” paper presented at Lighter-
Than-Air Systems Conference, Aug. 11-12, 1977, AIAA paper No. direct operating costs. Direct operating costs per
77-1192 available ton-knot of an airship based on the
49
latest technology are calculated to be from 50 to airship. However, surface transportation—

150 percent higher than those of an equivalent trucks, rail, and some ships—is more fuel effi-
size modern fanjet transport airplane. One study cient than airships. Thus higher fuel costs alone
concluded that 747 costs were 21.6 cents per rev- are not likely to appreciably enhance the
enue ton-mile and airship lower bound costs airship’s competitiveness.
were 35.7 cents per revenue ton-mile, assuming
Airships, as they are presently conceived, are
a 55 percent load factor and a 25 percent profit
not competitive with airplanes for the long-
before taxes.5 Other studies project airship costs
range transportation of cargo. There are, how-
to be four times those of airplanes. These studies
ever, other roles for which a modern airship or a
assume the existence of adequate numbers and
hybrid airship is well suited. Airships have defi-
locations of airports.
nite advantages over airplanes in short distance
There are other advantages to higher speed hauling of very heavy or bulky cargo, and for
besides increased productivity. One is that a fast jobs that require long endurance in the air, such
vehicle is less susceptible to weather delay than a as certain types of patrol. Airships can also be
slower one because head winds have less effect configured to perform vertical lift operations
on ground speed, and adverse weather can be more economically than helicopters and can do
more easily circumvented. Airplanes also have so with much heavier and larger payloads. If air-
the very important customer appeal of shorter ships do make the comeback some predict, it
trip times, which is a vital factor in passenger probably will be because they solve new trans-
service and is also important for most air cargo portation problems and not because they com-
service. pete directly with existing types of long-range
aircraft.
Higher fuel prices raise airplane operating
costs more than those of the more fuel-efficient
5
1bid., p. 93.
POTENTIAL PROPERTIES OF MODERN AIRSHIPS

Under a recent National Aeronautics and Ministry of Transportation, and the U.S. Air
Space Administration (NASA) -funded study, Force show that operational versatility as well as
the Goodyear Aerospace Corp. estimated that a operating economies can be substantially im-
26 percent reduction in empty weight as com- proved by marrying modern propulsion tech-
pared to the 1933 Macon could be achieved nologies to rigid or non-rigid conventional air-
using modern plastic and metallic materials. The ships. The propulsion system might be conven-
empty-weight-to-gross-weight ratio can be re- tional fan/prop units, which would improve
duced from 0.59 to about 0.40. The amount of cruise performance and terminal operations, or
payload would depend on the amount of fuel multiple rotor units to provide precision hover
taken on, which depends on the requirements of capability for lifts ranging from 20 to 150 tons.
the mission. G Such technological advances can Such an airship could operate into and out of
substantially improve the payload of modern remote and unprepared areas at substantially
airships of the ZPG-3W and Macon designs. lower costs than current alternatives with pay-
loads substantially larger or heavier than ex-
In addition, studies conducted by Goodyear
isting air lift methods.
for NASA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Alberta
‘Goodyear, op. cit., pp. 118-126.
— --——-—
Ch. 6—Lighter-Than-Air Vehicles ● 51
Photo credit Goodyear Aerospace Corp
MODERNIZED CONVENTIONAL AIRSHIPS (MCA)

One of the inherent characteristics of conven- the ability for vertical takeoff and landing
tional airships has been their ability to fly at (VTOL) and coarse hovering, which would
slow speed with little expenditure of fuel. This enable it to accomplish tasks not possible for
could make them appropriate for surveillance fixed wing aircraft.
missions of relatively long duration, provided
ground-handling and basing could be simplified, An MCA of this design would have takeoff
Modernization of these ships with efficient vec- and landing characteristics that approach those
torable propulsion could address this problem. of a helicopter, together with range and payload
In addition, it would provide the airship with capabilities well beyond that of the helicopter.
The ability of such an airship to carry moderate enable it to provide transportation for people or
payloads (20,000 to 80,000 lb) relatively long cargo in many locations for which it is imprac-
distances and to service unprepared sites would tical to use conventional transportation.
SURVEILLANCE ACTIVITIES
In 1957, a U.S. Navy airship set an endurance 4. Radar platform. The U.S. Defense Depart-
record of 11 days aloft and 9,000 miles traveled ment recently installed special target-de-
without refueling. 7 This is well beyond what is tecting radar on stationary ballons to spot
possible with fixed or rotary wing aircraft. The even very slow movements of troops. The
LTA also has low vibration level, low noise U.S. DOD estimates that the cost of using
level, and low pilot workload, all of which stationary ballons for day/night low
reduce crew fatigue. Some suggested applica- altitude observation is only one-tenth the
tions have been: cost of using airplanes. The mobility of
an airship combined with its tolerance for a
1. Mineral detection. Armed with the neces-
broader range of atmospheric and environ-
sary instruments, airships used in large
mental conditions would greatly expand
mineral surveys could outperform air-
this capability.
planes in both accuracy and costs. Com-
5. Police patrol. Both manned and unmanned
puters and a large amount of equipment
LTA’s have been tried for police patrol.
could be put on board. The steady flight
Goodyear and the city of Tempe, Ariz. in-
and low vibration would contribute to ac-
dependently experimented with manned
curacy. 8
dirigibles. One experiment included the de-
2. Pollution watch. A small airship, con-
velopment of remotely controlled mini-
trolled by a radio signal and carrying blimps of up to 10,000 ft3, with downward
several hundred pounds of detection in-
pointed TV cameras. This application is ex-
struments and television cameras, could
pected to have several economic and opera-
patrol the space above a city. The air pollu-
tional advantages over other patrol and
tion level of any chosen point could be
surveillance systems. Introduction of such
monitored accurately, and signals from
a system has been considered in Southern
pollution sources could be transmitted to
California.
the control center on the ground. g
3. Border lookout. Airships equipped with An MCA of about 875,000 fts has been as-
electronic surveillance instruments could sessed by the U.S. Coast Guard to be economic-
serve as lookout posts and communication ally and operationally effective in satisfying an
links between patrol units and command array of missions, including monitoring of buoy
posts in key border areas. placement, surveillance activities, port traffic
— — control, and monitoring ice conditions on the
‘Letter dated Mar. 27, 1980, from K. E. Williams, U.S. Coast
Great Lakes.
Guard.
8
Hsu Te Pao, “Prospects of Airship Applications” (originally
published in Hang K’ung Chih Shih, Peking, No. 8, 1976, pp.
30-32), translation prepared by Foreign Technology Division, — — —
10
FTD-ID(RS)T-2043-77 (Dayton, Ohio: Wright-Patterson AFB, Ibid., p. 11.
Foreign Technology Divisionr December 1977), p. 607. ‘‘ G. R. Semann, “Unmanned Blimp Patrol, ” paper No. 79-164,
‘Ibid., p. 8. 1979 AIAA Lighter-Than-Air Systems Technology Conference.
Ch. 6—Lighter-Than-Air Vehicles ● 53
HEAVY LIFT AIRSHIPS (H LA)

The Heavy Lift Airship (HLA), a concept first Figure 9.—Heavy Lift Airship Concept
proposed by Piasecki Aircraft Corp., consists of
a helium-filled airship hull with propulsive lift
derived from conventional helicopter rotors.
The buoyant lift essentially offsets the empty
weight of the vehicle; thus all the rotor thrust is
available for lifting the useful load, maneuver-
ing, and controlling the vehicle. 12 The purpose
of the HLA is to vertically lift and haul heavy
outsized cargo. The Piasecki version of this con-
cept is shown in figure 9. Piasecki is now under
contract to the Navy to build and demonstrate
in flight a prototype of this aircraft.
Goodyear has also designed a 75-ton HLA
(figure 10). It is estimated to have a range of 300
nautical miles, and can be ferried without pay-
load, with rotors folded, for over 3,000 miles.
Without the buoyance, the collective payload
capability of four equivalent helicopters at their
rated 100 mile range would be less than half that
of the HLA. 3
The HLA fuel consumption for a design speed
of 80 knots with design payload of 150,000 lb is
estimated to be 0.22 gal/ton-mile. Without the
benefits of buoyancy, fuel requirements would
be on the order of 0.52 gal/ton-mile.14
Table 4 indicates the estimated numbers and
required payloads of HLAs in several potential ‘*.
markets.
SOURCE: Piasecki Aircraft Corporation,
The two primary markets for the HLA appear

to be logging and unloading cargo at congested vialed the aircraft is capable of handling the
ports. The environmental benefits of this use of loads. A heavy lift-type airship showed signifi-
cant benefit for such applications. Similar eco-
the HLA when used in remote locations has been
logical constraints also exist in Northern regions
described as follows:
subject to heavy winter freezes and surface thaw
In a study of the potential application of ad- conditions. These were discussed in studies by
vanced aircraft in developing countries spon- the Canadian Province of Alberta which also
sored by NASA, it was found that the ecology pointed out that undeveloped areas do not con-
of the tropics can be seriously altered if normal tain the surface transportation systems required
methods (i. e., timber roads) are employed to to bring equipment into such regions or remove
gain access to certain natural resources—such as the resources. Furthermore, t h e c o s t s o f
forests. Air lifting can mitigate these effects pro- building adequate rail or road systems for short
term use did not justify such construction. 5
‘2Gooctyear Aerospace Corp., Fcmibllify St~/dW ,>f Mo~icr}t Air-
\/~Ip>, PIIU5U 11– E.xcct/f/~~t’ S~~/)~t)~ury, NASA report No, 2922 Interest in LTA continues to be active. In July
(Moffett Field, Calif.: Ames Research Center, National Aero-
nautics and Space Administration, November, 1977), pp. 7-8.
1981, the fourth international conference on
“Ibid., p. 12. ‘5Goodyear Aerospace Corp., Modern Airships Program, com-
“Ibid., p. 9. munication, March 1980.
54 Impact of Advanced Air Transport Technology
●
Figure 10.—Heavy Lift Airship—General Arrangement and Selected Performance Characteristics

75 Ton Payloada
*
~ “ ’ ’ ” Fin split
compartment Control Fuel Star frame

tanks
car 231 ft. *
Gross weight 290,807 Ibs.
Dynamic lift 150,000 Ibs.
— Static lift 140,807 Ibs.
Empty weight (including EREW, residual fuel) 140,564 Ibs,
Useful payload 150,000 Ibs
Static heaviness
Envelope volume 2,600,000 It 3 (unstretched)
3
Ballonet volume 650,000 It
Ballonet celling 9,500 It
Hull fineness ratio 418
Design speed (TAS) 80 knots
Range
I .- Rotor Design
Max. payload
No. payload
300 nm
Rotor 1,137 nm
module Ferry 3,180 nm
Ram air—
I Lift” Propeller
scoop Landing Outboard
gear strut strut
a
5,000 ft altitude, standard day, one engine out
, .
SOURCE: Goodyear Aerospace Corp., Modern Airships Program, Akron, Ohio.
LTA systems technology was held in this coun- Guard as well as work underway in Canada,
try. The three-day conference, sponsored by the England, France, and Germany. Projects cur-
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astro- rently in progress range from theoretical anal-
nautics (AIAA), received over 30 papers describ- ysis, through subsystem and component devel-
ing work presently being funded by the National opment to construction of a proof-of-concept
Forest Service, NASA, the Navy, and the Coast H L A.

The Air Cargo System: January 1982

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Air Cargo System: January 1982

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Air Cargo System: January 1982

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Air Cargo System

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Robert W. Simpson, Chairman

Jane H. Bartlett William K. Reilly

Ray E. Bates David S. Stempler

John G. Borger Holden W. Withington

Secor D. Browne Michael Yarymovych

‘Commission was dissolved Dec 31, 1979.

John Andelin, Assistant Director, OTA

Yupo Chan William Mills Marsha Mistretta Jacquelynne Mulder

OTA Publishing Staff

Keith G. Brady William T. Mikolowsky

Tulinda Deegan George A. Pasquet

Dennis J. Marshall Shirley Ybarra

2. An Overview of the Air Cargo System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3. Future Air Cargo Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4. Ground Support Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

5. Air Cargo Operating Restrictions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

6. Lighter-Than-Air Vehicles ., ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

1. General Air Freight Rate Increases for Selected Carriers, 1975-80 . . . . . . . . . . 15

DEDICATED V. DERIVATIVE AIRCRAFT

AIR CARGO INDUSTRY STRUCTURE

10 ● Irnpact of Advanced Air Transport Technology

Photo credit McDonnell Douglas

Cutaway layouts of a DC-8F combination cargo and passenger aircraft

Photo credit Flying Tiger Lines

All cargo aircraft

THE IMPACT OF LONG-HAUL AIRCRAFT

COSTS AND PROFITS OF U.S. ALL= CARGO OPERATIONS

20 Figure 2.—Operating Ratio (operating expense as a

SOURCE U S CiV il Aeronautics Board Trends in Scheduled All-Cargo Service,

AIR CARGO DEREGULATION

rates and for 1 year limiting free entry into new

Industry Response Photo credit Federal Express

THE PRESENT STATE OF THE INDUSTRY

FORECASTED INDUSTRY GROWTH

MAJOR CONCERNS OF CARGO CARRIERS

FUTURE AIR CARGO AIRCRAFT

FREIGHTERS DERIVED FROM PASSENGER AIRCRAFT

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF DERIVATIVE AIRCRAFT

DEDICATED AIR FREIGHTERS

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF A

A JOINT MILITARY-CIVIL CARGO AIRPLANE

“NDTA, Executive Report, pp. 14, 20. “Ibid., pp. 61-62.

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF JOINT DEVELOPMENT

GROUND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

GROUND SUPPORT SYSTEMS

AIR TERMINAL SPACE LIMITATIONS

MECHANIZATION AND CONTAINERIZATION

# olu(~le // ;jrepdred by R D E3u rby and W H

Figure 5.–Side-By-Side Loading Capability of Intermodel Containers in the B-747F

Figure 6.— High Mechanization Elevating Transfer Vehicle (ETV)

PICKUP AND DELlVERY

AIR CARGO OPERATING

AIR CARGO OPERATING RESTRICTIONS

FEDERAL NOISE REGULATION

AIRPORT OPERATING RESTRICTIONS

Table 4.—Annual Direct Efforts on the New England Economy

With minimum With schedules