Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An investigation of air cargo operations at the Vancouver International Airport Ladak, Omar-Hafaez 2001

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2002-0627.pdf [ 6.16MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0090547.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0090547-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0090547-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0090547-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0090547-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0090547-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0090547-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0090547-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0090547.ris

Full Text

An Investigation of Air Cargo Operations at Vancouver International Airport by Omar - Hafaez Ladak B.A.Sc, University of British Columbia, 2 0 0 0  A Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science (Business Administration) In The Faculty of Graduate Studies (Fa c u 1 ty of Commerce and Business Administration)  We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA December 2001 © Omar - Hafaez Ladak, 2001  In  presenting  degree freely  at  this  the  available  copying  of  department publication  of  in  partial  fulfilment  University  of  British  Columbia,  f o r reference  this or  thesis  thesis by  this  for  his  or  thesis  and study. scholarly her  of I  I further  purposes  gain  agree  shall  requirements that  agree  may be  representatives.  f o r financial  the  It  is  that  t h e Library permission  granted  by  understood  not be  for  allowed  an shall for  of  ^fu^yj & Cct^-^fe?  T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f British Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6  (2/88)  KJoiJ . *  Columbia  9^Si£> \  make  that  it  extensive  the head  of  my  copying  or  without  permission.  Department  advanced  .-(W^^O  my  written  Abstract Described in this thesis is a summary of the methodology and results of a project conducted in the area of air cargo operations at the Vancouver International Airport (YVR). The objective of this project was to assist the Vancouver Airport Authority in understanding the operational requirements of air cargo transportation—an understanding required to achieve their strategic goals with respect to cargo transportation at YVR. The first phase of the project involved developing end-to-end process maps of all key cargo processes. This was done through interviews and site visits with cargo agents servicing YVR. Through information gathered in the process mapping phase and brainstorming sessions with Airport Authority management, key cargo resources were identified for detailed investigation. The resources chosen were the network of flights servicing YVR and dedicated airside storage space for transhipment cargo. The final phases of the project involved the detailed analyses of these resources. The YVR Flight Network Cargo Capacity Analysis quantifies the useful cargo carrying capacity of the YVR flight network for the year 2000 at 550,000 tonnes. This analysis is used to improve the understanding of how additional flight services increase the ability for Y V R to transport cargo. This information can assist the Airport Authority in evaluating what changes in the flight network would be required to reach the strategic goal of doubling YVR air cargo transportation by 2010. The purpose of the Transhipment Cargo Facility Analysis was to give recommendation to the Airport Authority with respect to the necessity and potential value of developing an airside transhipment cargo facility at YVR. Information was synthesized from surveys sent to cargo agents servicing YVR, survey follow-up interviews, airside operations observations, and sample data collected describing the arrival and dwell time of transhipment cargo at YVR. The analysis presented concludes that a transhipment cargo staging would be beneficial to cargo agents at YVR. The benefit of reduced damage and spoilage of cargo is offset by the opportunity cost of the space.  ii  Table of Contents Abstract Table of Contents Table of Figures, Tables and Equations I. Introduction  1  II. Background 2.1 Air Cargo Summary 2.2 Business Needs 2.3 Project Goals and Methodology  2 2 5 6  III. Process Mapping of Cargo Operations 3.1 Overview 3.2 Process Mapping Approach 3.3 General Cargo Movement 3.3.1 Agent Descriptions 3.3.2 Process Descriptions 3.4 Integrator Cargo Movement 3.4.1 Agent Description 3.4.2 Process Descriptions 3.5 Summary of Cargo Resources  7 7 8 8 8 11 16 16 17 18  IV. Flight Network Cargo Capacity Analysis 4.1 Model Description 4.1.1 Flight Movements Analysis 4.1.2 Aircraft Cargo Capacity Analysis 4.2 Model Results 4.2.1 Flight Network Cargo Capacity 4.2.2 Scenario Analysis 4.2.3 Additional Capacity Analysis 4.2.4 Conclusion 4.3 Further Work for Understanding the Cargo Capacity of the YVR Flight Network  20 20 21 22 28 29 31 34 35 36  V. Transhipment Cargo Facility Analysis 5.1 Introduction and Overview 5.2 Summary of Survey Results 5.3 Value / Cost Trade - off 5.3.1 Value Drivers 5.3.2 Cost Drivers 5.3.3 Summary 5.4 Demand for a Transhipment Cargo Facility 5.5 Required Space Allocation  37 38 38 43 43 44 46 46 49  VI. Conclusion  51  6.1 Project Summary 6.2 Further Work for Understanding Cargo Operations 6.3 Commentary on Planning for Cargo Operations  51 51 52  VI. References  56.  Appendix 1: List of Airport Codes Appendix 2: Air Cargo Transportation Process Maps Appendix 3: Supporting Material for Flight Network Cargo Capacity Analysis Appendix 4: Supporting Material for Transhipment Cargo Facility Analysis  57 58' 68 81  IV  Table of Figures, Tables and Equations Figure 1: Figure 2: Figure 3: Figure 4: Figure 5: Figure 6: Figure 7: Figure 8: Figure 9: Figure 10: Figure 11: Figure 12: Figure 13: Figure 14: Figure 15: Figure 16: Figure 17: Figure 18:  YVR Cargo Tonnage 1992-2001 YVR Cargo Tonnage Comparison with Major Cargo Airports YVR Cargo Tonnage Comparison with Pacific North American Airports YVR Export Cargo Commodities Export Process Relationship Diagram Import Process Relationship Diagram ; Cargo Carrying Aircraft Families. Flight Network Cargo Capacity by Aircraft Type Flight Network Cargo Capacity by Sector and Aircraft Type Cargo Movements by Aircraft Type Iso-Tonnage Curves Map of Transhipment Cargo Facility Location Survey Response Summary Significant Transhipment Cargo Costs Major Causes of Cargo Damage : Key Transhipment Cargo Facility Services Transhipment Cargo Connection Plot Transhipment Cargo Facility Layout Concept  2 2 3 3 10 13 19 27 ..28 29 33 35 39 40 40 41 42 51  Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6: Table 7: Table 8: Table 9: Table 10: Table 11: Table 12:  Cargo Resources Summary Weights of Pallets and Containers Co Var of Cargo Carrying Capacity of Wide Body Configurations Bags per Passenger by Sector Sensitivity Analysis Key Input Parameters Scenario Analysis Additional Capacity Survey Response Summary Transhipment Cargo Data Current Transhipment Cargo Demand Transhipment Cargo Demand Scenarios  17 22 22 24 30 31 31 33 38 42 43 44  Equation 1: Equation 2: Equation 3: Equation 4:  Flight Network Cargo Capacity Equation Wide Body Cargo Capacity Baggage Containers Equation Narrow Body Cargo Capacity  18 20 21 25  I. Introduction The research documented in this report was conducted at the Centre for Operations Excellence (COE) in the Faculty of Commerce at the University of British Columbia. This report is a summary of the methodology and results of a project conducted in collaboration with COE partner the Vancouver International Airport Authority in the area of air cargo operations.  The goal of the project was to provide information to the Airport Authority to support strategic decision-making with respect to air cargo operations. Operational information about cargo transportation was synthesized in end-to-end process maps of the major air cargo processes. This operational understanding was used to select two resources for further investigation. First, the cargo carrying capacity of the network of flights which services YYR was quantified and second, the value of a potential airside cargo development for transhipment cargo was investigated.  The first section of this report describes the background of the problem. This includes understanding the role of the Airport Authority, a summary of air cargo volumes and cargo types, and a descriptions of the business needs, the project goals and methodology. The body of the report includes three sections describing the process mapping exercise and the two detailed analyses which resulted there from. The conclusion of this report includes a brief commentary on planning for cargo operations.  1  II. Background Included in this section is the background information describing the environment in which this project takes place.  Included is a description of the role of the Airport  Authority, a summary of air cargo volumes and types, and a description of the business needs, the project goals and methodology.  The Vancouver International Airport Authority is an independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit corporation which was established in 1992 to oversee operations and land management of the Vancouver International Airport (YVR).  The Airport Authority  operates YVR under a 60-year ground lease with the Government of Canada and has governance over operational and capital budgeting decisions mandated by the YVR Master Plan submitted to the Federal Ministry of Transportation.  The Airport Authority must develop and maintain infrastructure to support the operations of the two main sectors of the air transportation industry, passenger travel and cargo transportation. In 1992, when the Airport Authority was formed, they invested their time and effort heavily into improving operations and services for passenger travel. Over the past few years, the Airport Authority has begun to focus more attention on the infrastructure and operations of the cargo sector of their business. In 2000, the Board of Directors of the Airport Authority set a strategic goal of doubling air cargo volumes through YVR by 2010. The focus of the project outlined in this report was to assist Airport Authority management in improving their understanding of the operational requirements of meeting this strategic goal. 2.1 Air Cargo Summary  The cargo tonnage shipped through YVR has increased by over 75% between 1992 and 2000 at an average rate of 7.6% per year [Vancouver International Airport Authority]. Volumes increased steadily between 1994 and 1996, slowing in 1997 and 1998 due to the  2  Asian crisis [Intervistas].  Cargo volumes in 2000 and 2001 have declined from peak 1  volumes in 1999—forecasts for 2001 show cargo volumes below 250,000 tonnes. Figure 1 shows the total YVR cargo volume for 1992 to 2001, as well as the percentage growth from the previous year. YVR Cargo Tonnage (1992 - 2000)  300,000  -7.3%  1992  1993  1994  1995  1996  1997  1998  1999  2000  2001"  2001" is a forecasted value utilizing year to date cargo tonnage and historic annual seasonality trends  Figure 1: YVR Cargo Tonnage 1992-2001  In comparison to major international cargo airports, YVR is a small player in the air cargo transportation market. Shipping approximately 252,000 tonnes of cargo in 2000, YVR ranked 63 in the world with respect to cargo tonnage shipped. [Airport Council rd  International (ACI)]. Figure 2 shows the cargo tonnage shipped through major cargo airports in 2000 as well as the percentage change from 1999. Comparison with Major Cargo Airports Tonnage for 2000 and Percentage Change from 1999 3000 2500  3.2% -13.3%"  - 2000  5.9%  4.9%  10.0%  13.2%  <n -  b o  fo> 1500 c c:  LEGEND  ° 1000 --6.4%-  500 MEM  HKG  LAX  NRT  ANC  SEL  YVR  MEM HKG LAX NRT ANC SEL  Memphis Hong Kong Los Angeles Tokyo Anchorage Seoul  Figure 2: YVR Cargo Tonnage Comparison with Major Cargo Airports Cargo volumes for 2001 were forecasted using year to date cargo tonnage and annual seasonality trends  3  Even in comparison to competing Pacific North American airports, Y V R is small with respect to cargo tonnage shipped. In 2000, Y V R shipped 5 4 % of the cargo tonnage shipped through Seattle-Tacoma International Airport (SEA), and slightly more than onethird of that shipped through San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Los Angeles (LAX) is the largest Pacific Airport, transporting more than twice the cargo volume of any other competitor, and more than eight times that of Y V R . [ACI] Comparison with Competing Pacific North America Airports Tonnage for 2000 and Percentage Change from 1999 2500  LEGEND  3.5%  LAX  SFO  OAK  ONT  •  SEA  -9.5%  -fi 4°/„  PDX  YVR  LAX SFO OAK ONT SEA PDX  Los Angeles San Francisco Oakland (CA) Ontario (CA) Seatle -Tacoma Portland  Figure 3: YVR Cargo Tonnage Comparison with Pacific Northwest Airports  The cargo shipped by air tends to be low density, time sensitive commodities. This includes perishables, electrical instrumentation, machinery, printing material as well as other goods and products. [Turner] YVR Export Cargo Commodities by Volume  Printing 7%  Machinery 18%  Figure 4: YVR Export Cargo Commodities  4  2.2 Business Needs In response to the strategic goal set by the Board of Directors, a comparative study was commissioned by the Airport Authority to investigate the competitive differences between YVR and its main competing cargo airports. This study was conducted by Leigh Fisher and Associates, an airline consultant based in San Francisco.  The study analyzed and compared the competitive factors and development strategies of competing operators of cargo airports on the Pacific Coast of North America. Airports included in the study were Seattle-Tacoma, Portland, Calgary, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Ontario, Reno/Tahoe, Mather (Sacramento), Denver, Salt Lake City, and Anchorage. The study concluded with the a SWOT analysis of YVR versus these competitors.  The conclusions and recommendations of this report were as follows. Strengths and Opportunities •  YVR has an excellent geographical location for the development of international air cargo services, particularly to/from Asia.  •  YVR has significantly more space for future cargo developments than its major competitors.  •  YVR has a more flexible form of airport governance than many other airports surveyed.  •  YVR has reasonable air cargo costs compared to other airports.  Weaknesses and Threats •  YVR is deficient in widebody international freighter air service and loses a large amount of air-eligible freight to airports in Seattle-Tacoma, Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.  •  YVR currently has adequate existing air cargo infrastructure; however, as the cargo volume grows at YVR current facilities may become constrained.  5  Recommendations •  The Airport Authority should undertake a Cargo Action Plan that would address the areas of information required to design an implementable Cargo Development Strategy  2.3 Project Goals and Methodology Following from the recommendations of the Leigh Fisher report, the over all goal of this project is to provide information to the Airport Authority to support strategic decision making with respect to cargo operations—potential operational changes, and potential development decisions.  This overall goal breaks down into three project objectives.  First, a clear understanding of current operational processes used at YVR to process air cargo must be developed. Second, potential bottlenecks and process inefficiencies which may impede cargo volume growth should be identified.  Third, analysis of potential  bottleneck resources and scenario analysis around process improvements should be conducted.  These three project objectives break down into the following methodology used to frame this project. First a process mapping exercise was conducted to document, end-to-end, the major cargo processes at YVR. These process maps were used to identify the major resources utilized for cargo transportation. Through information gathered during the process mapping phase and brainstorming sessions with Airport Authority management, resources were selected for further analysis.  The outcome of these analyses was  information to support strategic decision making by Airport Authority management regarding policy and infrastructure development in the area of cargo operations.  6  III. Process Mapping of Cargo Operations End-to-end process maps of the major air cargo processes were constructed to provide the Airport Authority with operational information about cargo transportation. These process maps summarize the physical and informational processes utilized by cargo agents when transporting cargo via YVR.  3.1 Overview There are two main air cargo process groups, General Cargo Movement and Integrator Cargo carriers such as Federal Express or UPS. Integrated freight carriers operate or operationally control, all components in the transportation process.  General Cargo  Movement refers to a process for cargo transportation which involves multiple players each with a unique role in the logistics chain. An example is cargo carried in the belly  2  of passenger aircraft, where a passenger airline operates the aircraft transporting the cargo, but the cargo consolidation, handling, and logistics would be controlled by other cargo agents.  These main air cargo process groups break down into three end-to-end processes described in this section, Export, Import and Transhipment. Export refers to cargo which is flown out of Vancouver but arrived at YVR by truck. Import refers to cargo which is flown into Vancouver and departs YVR by truck. Transhipment cargo is flown into and out of Vancouver, much like a passenger at a connection stop over.  Each end-to-end process described is broken down into three phases, Landside, AirsideLandside Interface, and Airside. Airside refers to all activities which take place on the airfield at YVR and Airside-Landside interface refers to all activities which occur in a warehouse with airside access. Landside refers to activities performed in warehouses at YVR which do not have direct access to airside, warehouses not on the airport site, and land transportation between YVR and other locations.  2  The belly of an aircraft is the area underneath the passenger deck where baggage and cargo is stowed  7  3.2 Process Mapping Approach The information required to process map cargo operations at YVR was collected through site visits and interviews with managers at a number of independent cargo agents. The largest agents in each agent category were involved in this phase.  Site visits were  conducted at each cargo agent's facilities and representatives were interviewed. After each agent involved had been interviewed, a relationship diagram depicting the interactions between agent types and generalized process maps incorporating any important operational differences among cargo agents were produced. This set of process maps was then confirmed for accuracy by the agents through second and third round interviews.  The process maps created were not detailed descriptions of the operations of cargo agents, rather they were a description of the activities that cargo undergoes while being prepared for transportation via air. Even though the ancillary roles of each agent may vary with different ship sets or contracts, the steps which cargo goes through remain constant. It is these general steps which are represented in the process maps.  3.3 General Cargo Movement General Cargo Movement is a transportation process which involves numerous players. This section describes each agent type involved in General Cargo Movement as well as each of the end-to-end processes mapped.  3.3.1 Agent Descriptions  There are five cargo agent types which perform activities in the General Cargo Movement Processes: Freight Forwarders, Ground Handlers, Ramp Handlers, Airline Operators and Canada Customs.  8  Freight Forwarder  /Broker  The primary function of a Freight Forwarder is to broker transportation space and consolidate shipments.  Freight Forwarders do not operate aircraft or ground  transportation fleets, they simply facilitate the logistics of cargo movement. Freight Forwarders can provide door-to-door transportation logistics which would include organizing and brokering ground and air transportation space, consolidating and packing ship sets, as well as organizing customs clearance. They may also provide any single piece or combination of logistics services required for cargo transportation.  Freight Forwarders generally offer a consolidation service to their customers.  By  consolidating the shipments of multiple customers into one ship set they are able to pass on bulk shipping prices to smaller shippers. Some larger Freight Forwarders operate landside warehouses for consolidation activities.  Smaller Freight Forwarders may  contract ship set consolidation to third party warehouse operators.  Ground  Handler  The primary function of Ground Handlers is the staging and receiving of entire ship sets at an airside access warehouse. Each airline has a sole cargo Ground Handler that is responsible for preparing all containers and pallets of cargo for that airlines flights. Staging cargo shipments for outbound flights involves the final preparation of cargo containers and pallets for air transportation, and receiving cargo shipmentsfrominbound flights involves preparing ship sets for release to cargo shippers or their consignees. In addition to staging and receiving ship sets, Ground Handlers may transport cargo and / or documentation to andfromthe aircraft.  Freight Forwarder and Broker are interchangeable terms to refer to the same classification of cargo agents. The term Broker was included for completeness but, Freight Forwarder will be used to refer to this type of cargo agent. 3  9  The Ground Handler operates a warehouse with access to airside that contains refrigeration facilities for perishable goods, and secure areas for high value and dangerous goods.  Ramp Handlers  The primary cargo functions of ramp handlers is to load and unload cargo from aircraft and transport cargo and documentation to and from the airside access warehouse. In addition the Ramp Handler's operations department would determine a balanced loading configuration for aircrafts before loading. This process is referred to as weigh and balancing an aircraft.  Ramp Handlers also provide a number of non-cargo related services including, baggage handling, aircraft cleaning, aircraft de-icing, and aircraft fueling.  Airline  Operators  The primary function of airlines, within the cargo transportation process, is to operate aircraft and provide cargo transportation. The majority of airline operated flights at YVR are passenger flights with cargo, transported in the belly hold, serving as a secondary revenue source for the airline. There are a small number of freighters (all cargo aircraft) which service YVR.  Air Canada , the national carrier, operates its own Ground Handling service, know as an 4  Airline Warehouse, as well as its own Ramp Handling service.  Air Canada now includes the operations of Canadian Airlines due to the merger of the two airlines in 2000. Prior to this merger, Canadian Airlines also operated its own Airline Warehouse.  4  10  Canada Customs  The primary function of Canada Customs, within the cargo process, is to clear goods originating from international locations, for entry into Canada.  Customs clearance  involves the evaluation of transportation documentation and potential inspection of cargo. Documentation evaluation can occur electronically prior to the aircrafts arrival, know as wheels up clearance. All cargo must be cleared before being released from the airside access warehouse.  3.3.2 Process Descriptions  General Cargo Movement includes three main processes; export, import and transhipment.  Each process has been divided into three phases Landside, Airside-  Landside Interface, and Airside.  3.3.2.1 Export Process Figure 5 shows the export process relationship diagram depicting the general interactions between cargo agents and the phase in which each agent primarily operates. Phase 1: Landside, involves the organization of transportation logistics by the Freight Forwarder or the Shipper as well as any consolidation activity which may occur. Phase 2: Airside Landside Interface, involves the final preparation of cargo by the Ground Handler for 5  transport to the aircraft. Phase 3: Airside, involves the airside transportation of cargo ship sets, as well as the loading of cargo onto the outbound aircraft.  Phase 1:  Landside  The Landside phase of the Export process starts with the organization of cargo transportation logistics and ends with the delivery of cargo to the Ground Handler's airside access warehouse. The Shipper may utilize the services of Freight Forwader or The term Ground Handler will be used to refer to both Ground Handlers and Airline Warehouse since both parties play the same role in the logistics chain. 5  11  organize transportation logistics themselves. If a Freight Forwarder is not used, the Shipper would arrange for transportation of their cargo to the Ground Handler's warehouse, which operationally would correspond to starting in Phase 2.  Phase 1 : Landside  Phase 2: Airside Landside  Phase 3: Airside  SHIPPER AIRUNE WAREHOUSE 5  RAMP HANDLER  FREIGHT FORWARDER/ BROKER  t  AIRCRAFT  GROUND HANDLER/ AIRSIDE ACCESS WAREHOUSE  Figure 5: Export Process Relationship Diagram  If a Freight Forwarder is utilized, they will arrange for transportation logistics, and any consolidation activities as well as generate all documentation required for cargo transportation. After consolidation, cargo and documentation would be stored by the Freight Forwarder until it is ready to be transported to the Ground Handler's warehouse.  A detailed process map of this phase is available in Appendix 2-p59.  Phase 2: Airside-Landside Interface  The Airside-Landside Interface phase of the Export process stars with cargo being received at an airside access warehouse, and ends with cargo staged for transportation to the aircraft. Cargo is transported to the Ground Handler's warehouse for final processing prior to transportation to the aircraft—the cut off time for receipt of goods by Ground Handlers is approximately 3 hours prior to aircraft departure. Final processing of the cargo includes packing containers and securing pallets, weighing and dimensioning of  12  cargo containers and pallets, creating the final manifest , and submitting the final weights 6  to the operations department of the ramp handler for weigh and balance analysis.  After processing, cargo is stored at the Ground Handler's warehouse prior to transport to the aircraft. Perishable cargo is stored in refrigeration facilities, and dangerous goods are stored in a secure area.  A detailed process map of this phase is available in Appendix 2-p60.  Phase 3:  Airside  The Airside phase of the Export process starts with weigh and balance information being sent to the Ramp Handler's Operations Department and ends with the aircraft departing. Information regarding the weights and dimensions of cargo being shipped is submitted to the Ramp Handler by the Ground Handler prior to transporting the cargo to the aircraft. Cargo and documentation are transported from the airside access warehouse to the aircraft approximately 1 hour prior to departure and the cargo, along with baggage, is loaded onto the aircraft by the Ramp Handler. Transportation of the cargo from the Ground Handler's warehouse to the aircraft may be provided by either the Ramp Handler or the Ground Handler, and is contract dependant.  A detailed process map of this phase is available in Appendix 2-p61.  3.3.2.2 Import Process Figure 6 shows the import process relationship diagram depicting the general interactions between cargo agents and the phase in which each agent primarily operates. Phase 3: Airside, involves the unloading of the inbound aircraft as well as airside transportation of cargo ship sets. Phase 2: Airside - Landside Interface, involves customs clearance and distribution of the cargo to the consignee by the Ground Handler. Phase 1: Landside,  6  A manifest is the survey of all contents and weight of a particular container or pallet  13  involves transportation logistics by the Freight Forwarder or the Shipper to the final destination.  Phase 3: Airside  Phase 2: Airside Landside  Phase 1: Landside  AIRLINE WAREHOUSE  RAMP HANDLER GROUND HANDLER/ AIRSIDE ACCESS WAREHOUSE  FREIGHT FORWARDER / BROKER  Figure 6: Import Process Relationship Diagram  Phase 3:  Airside  The Airside phase of the Import process starts with the unloading of the aircraft and ends with the delivery of cargo and documentation to the airside access warehouse. The Ramp Handler meets the aircraft at the terminal and unloads the cargo and documentation. For passenger aircraft, baggage has priority and is unloaded before cargo. After unloading, the cargo is transported to the airside access warehouse.  Documentation may be  transported before cargo is unloaded to expedite the customs clearance process in the event that the cargo has not been wheels up customs cleared.  A process map of this phase is available in Appendix 2-p62.  14  Phase 2: Airside-Landside  Interface  The Airside-Landside Interface phase of the Import process starts with the Ground Handler receiving the cargo and/or documentation, and ends with the release of the cargo to the Shipper or Freight Forwarder. At the airside access warehouse, the containers and pallets must be broken down, the contents must be checked against the manifest, and the goods must be cleared by Customs. Goods may be cleared prior to their arrival through the wheels up clearance process, however if cargo requires customs inspection it must be stored at the airside access warehouse until it has been cleared.  A detailed process map of this phase is available in Appendix 2-p63.  Phase I:  Landside  The Landside phase of the Import process starts with the release of cargo from the Ground Handler's warehouse and ends with transportation to the final destination. The cargo can be released by the Ground Handler to the Shipper or to a Freight Forwarder. If the cargo is released to the Shipper, no further processing by any cargo agents is required. Cargo released to a Freight Forwarder may be transported directly to the final destination or be transported to a landside warehouse for further processing. This processing may include break down and re-packing of ship sets before transportation or pick up by the Shipper. Perishable goods are stored in refrigeration facilities and dangerous goods are stored in secure areas.  A detailed process map of this phase is available in Appendix 2-p64.  3.3.2.2 Transhipment Process  Transhipment cargo is cargo which is flown into YVR, staged for a connecting flight, and flown out of YVR. This process starts with an aircraft landing, and ends with the connecting flight departing.  15  The Ramp Handler meets the arriving aircraft and unloads the cargo and baggage from the aircraft. Cargo is either staged at an airside storage area or transported back to an airside access warehouse for staging prior to the departing flight. The in-transit cargo is transported to the departing aircraft for loading approximately one hour prior to departure.  There are four conditions that can require cargo to be transported to an airside access warehouse for staging: 1. ) The cargo has been requested by Customs for inspection 2. ) The cargo requires re-packing into another container type or consolidation with additional cargo 3. ) The cargo requires long term staging - greater than four hours 4. ) The cargo requires shelter from the elements  A detailed process map of this phase is available in Appendix 2-p.65.  3.4 Integrator Cargo Movement Integrator Cargo Movement refers to cargo carried by integrated freight carriers. This section describes the role of the integrated freight carrier as well as the end-to-end processes mapped.  3.4.1 Agent Description  Integrated freight carriers such as Federal Express or UPS provide door-to-door package transportation and logistics. Integrators often operate all processing and transportation equipment and perform all of their handling activities. All assets from ground transportation networks, sorting facilities, ramp space, and aircraft are operated by the Integrator.  16  Electronic data is widely used by Integrators. Electronic airway bills, electronic tracking of packages, and 100% wheels up customs clearance are employed by larger Integrated Carriers.  3.4.2 Process Descriptions  There are two main Integrator freight processes, Export and Import. The export process involves transporting packages that originate in British Columbia and the import process involves the transporting of packages that are destined for British Columbia. Since no Integrator operates a hub in Vancouver, no Integrator transhipment cargo process exists.  3.4.2.1 Export Process  The Integrator export process stars with the collection of packages from the customer or drop off depot, and ends with a loaded aircraft departing YVR. Goods are collected from the customer and transported to regional distribution center or the airport facility for processing. Processing involves sorting the packages by destination and packing the packages into containers.  The containers from the regional distribution centers are  transported to the airport facility and combined with the containers packed at the airport facility.  The containers are weighed and a balanced configuration for the aircraft is derived. The containers are loaded onto the aircraft as specified by the weigh and balance analysis and the loaded aircraft departs YVR.  A detailed process map of this process is available in Appendix 2-p66.  3.4.2.2 Import Process  The integrator import process starts with customs clearance of goods, which occurs prior to the aircraft landing at YVR, and ends with the customer receiving their package.  17  Containers of packages are unloaded from the aircraft and transported to the integrator's airport sorting facility.  Containers are unpacked and packages are sorted by final  destination—packages which have been requested for customs inspection, are held at the integrator's facility. After sorting, packages are transported to a local pick up depot or delivered to the final destination.  A detailed process map of this process is available in Appendix 2-p67.  3.5 Summary of Cargo Resources The resources outlined below are utilized by cargo agents in the air transportation process and are potential candidates for bottleneck resources which could impede cargo volume growth at YVR. With the exception of cargo warehousing space, all of the identified resources are shared resources with other non-cargo processes. For example, the primary purpose of passenger aircraft in the flight network servicing YVR, which is utilized to carry the majority of YVR air cargo, is to transport passengers.  Cargo is secondary  revenue source for passenger airline operators. Nevertheless, theses shared resources may represent a serious impediment to cargo growth. Phase 1: Landside •  •  •  Phase 1: Airside-Landside  Landside roadways Miller Road Jericho Road  •  Airside access warehouse space  Warehouse access Truck Bays Parking for Trucks  •  Customs clearance resources  Phase 1: Airside • •  YVR Flight Network Aircraft resources Runways / taxiways Terminal / apron space Fuel hydrant trucks  •  Airside cargo storage space  Landside warehouse space Table 1: Cargo Resource Summary  Through brainstorming with Airport Authority management, two resources were identified as key with respect to policy and potential development and therefore were selected for further analysis; the network of flights which services YVR and airside cargo storage space. The goal of the YVR flight network analysis was to determine the current cargo carrying capacity of the network of flights servicing YVR and to understand its  18  potential to become a bottleneck for carrying increasing cargo volumes. The analysis of airside cargo storage space involved evaluating the necessity and potential value of developing an airside transhipment cargo facility. This facility would be integrated into the expansion of the International Terminal Building.  19  IV. Flight Network Cargo Capacity Analysis The goal of the analysis presented in this section is to determine the cargo carrying capacity, in tonnes, of the network of flights that serviced the Vancouver International Airport (YVR) over the year 2000. Understanding the flight network capacity will assist the Airport Authority in understanding how additional flight services will be necessary to meet their strategic goal of doubling air cargo volume by 2010. 4.1 Model Description There are two major components to this analysis. First, deriving a count of the number of cargo carrying flights servicing YVR over the year 2000 and second, modeling the cargo carrying capacity of each aircraft.  The cargo carrying capacity of the network is  calculated as the sum product of the two.  Where:  C = Totalflightnetworkcargocapacityin tonnesfor theyear2000 T  c, =Theaveragecapacityof a" full"aircraftJor aircraft ^pei,whereaircraft ypei is a widebody w  cf = The averagecapacityof a" full"aircraft,for aircraft ypei, whereaircraft ^pei is a narrowbody f = Numberof flightsof aircraft ypei over theyear2000 Equation 1: Flight Network Cargo Capacity Equation  The number of flight movements of cargo carrying aircraft was determined from the YVR tower log for the year 2000 collected from the Vancouver Airport Authority. A description of the analysis used to verify the data and remove non-cargo carrying flights is described in the Flight Movement Analysis section (section 4.1.1).  The cargo carrying capacity of each aircraft was modeled taking into account passenger baggage and volume constraints. Since wide body aircraft carry the majority of their cargo in pallets and containers and narrow body aircraft carry all cargo in bulk holds, the two classes of aircraft were modeled separately. A detailed description of each model is  20  provided in the Aircraft Cargo Capacity Analysis section (section 4.1.2).  The  representation of the entire mathematical model and description of all input parameters is given in Appendix 3-p68. 4.1.1 Flight Movements Analysis The YVR Tower Log, which notes all flight movements controlled by the YVR Control Tower was used to derive a count of the cargo carrying flights servicing YVR. To verify the accuracy of the data received, the Tower Log for the year 2000 was verified against the summary statistics posted on the YVR web site. The data sample matched the YVR summary statistics almost perfectly with an overall difference of only 0.1%. A graphical summary of this comparison is available in Appendix 3-p70.  All non-cargo carrying aircraft were then removed from the Tower Log to derive a schedule of cargo carrying aircraft. Non-cargo carrying aircraft include private aircraft, "Medivac" aircraft, propeller aircraft, and jet aircraft with less than 75 seats. The families of cargo carrying aircraft are provided below and a graphical summary of cargo carrying flight movements over the year 2000 is provided in Appendix 3.  W i d e B o d y Aircraft  Narrow Body Aircraft  A l l Cargo Aircraft (Freighters and Integrators)  A300/310'S  BAe 146's  B747-400 F  A330/340's  A319/320's  A300B F  B747's  B727's  ANT 124  B767's  B737's  B727 F  B777's  B757's  DClO's  DC9's  LlOll's  F28's  MDll's  MD - 80's  Figure 7: Cargo Carrying Aircraft Families  21  From the cargo carrying aircraft schedule, a count of the number of flight movements was generated by aircraft type for the year 2000. In addition, the flight movements of each aircraft type were segregated by sector . Classification by sector was necessary due 7  to the fact that the parameters used to determine the cargo carrying capacity of aircraft are functions of the sector that the aircraft services.  4.1.2 Aircraft Cargo Capacity Analysis  The cargo carrying capacity of an aircraft can be broken down into three components, pallet spaces, container spaces, and bulk hold volume. In wide body aircraft, the majority of cargo is packed in containers and pallets—very little cargo stored in the bulk hold. On narrow body aircraft however, there are no pallet or container spaces and all cargo is carried in bulk holds. Due to this fact, narrow body aircraft were modeled separately from wide body aircraft. The model used for all freight aircraft was a combination of the narrow body and wide body models  4.1.2.1 Wide body Aircraft Capacity The following equations were used to model the cargo carrying capcity of a wide body passenger aircraft.  cf = (X -nf)*w + nf *w +w e  p  b  Where : n- = The number of container spaces on aircraft i n\ = The average number of containers occupied by baggage for aircraft type i w = The average weight of a full container (not the maximum weight) c  nf = The number of pallet spaces on aircraft i w = The average weight of a full pallet (not the maximum weight) p  w = The average bulk hold allocation for cargo h  Equation 2: Wide Body Cargo Capacity  Sector refers to the region that the aircraft is servicing; International, Transborder, or Domestic. Transborder refers to transportation between the United States and Canada. 7  22  b _  n  pi* * b/p L  n  blc  n  Where :  p = The seating capacity for aircraft i t  L = The average load factor n = The average number of bags per person n = The average number of bags per container bl  b/c  Equation 3: Baggage Containers Equation  There are three main issues with respect to modeling the cargo carrying capacity of a wide body aircraft. First, the cargo carrying capacity of an aircraft is not constrained by tonnage capacity, which is what this analysis is attempting to derive, but rather volume capacity.  Second, each wide body aircraft type can have numerous cargo hold  configurations . Third, baggage occupies a large proportion of container spaces and must be subtractedfromcargo hold configuration to derive the capacity that an aircraft has to carry cargo.  Cargo Capacity of a "Full" Aircraft  According to cargo handlers, only in the rarest cases will a flight carry dense enough cargo to reach the tonnage capacity constraints for the aircraft. Therefore, the modeling challenge becomes estimating the cargo carrying capacity of a "full" aircraft, not the maximum cargo carrying capacity of that aircraft.  For wide body aircraft, the cargo carrying capacity of a "full" aircraft was determined by multiplying the mean weight of a full pallet or container by the number of pallets and containers respectively in the cargo hold configuration. The mean weight of a full pallet or container was derivedfroma data set of pallet and container weights collected from an independent cargo handler. The data set contained the weights of 37 pallets and 30 containers shipped last year on various airlines at various times of the year. A summary  A cargo configuration refers to the number of pallet and container spaces in the cargo hold of the aircraft  23  of the data is provided below and a more detailed analysis of the data set is provided in Appendix 3.  Mean Weight of Full Load  95 ° Confidence Interval on Mean Weight of Full Load  Pallet  1797 kg  (806,1020) kg  Container  913 kg  (1550,2044) kg  Table 2: Weights of Pallets and Containers  In addition to pallet and container spaces, wide body aircraft have bulk holds. According to cargo handlers, very limited amounts of bulk hold space are allocated to cargo. They estimated that on average 250kg of bulk hold capacity was allocated for cargo on wide body aircraft.  Cargo Hold Configurations for Wide Body Aircraft  The cargo configurations for wide body aircraft are not fixed—any one aircraft type can have numerous potential cargo configurations. For example, an MD11 can have a cargo hold configuration which includes 4 pallet spaces and 20 container spaces or 9 pallet spaces and 4 container spaces. Since data does not exist describing the configuration of the aircraft which service Y V R , the potential effect of these differences must be examined.  To examine the differences in the cargo configurations, an analysis comparing the cargo carrying capacity of all the potential configurations for three wide body aircraft MD-11, 747-400, and 767-300 was constructed.  This analysis showed that the difference with  respect to the capacity of cargo that could be carried by the different configurations was small. The coefficient of variation of cargo carrying capacity of each aircraft type is provided below. Coefficient of Variation of Cargo Capacity of all Configurations MD-11  747-400  767-300  7.2%  11.4%  11.6%  Table 3: CoVar of Cargo Carrying Capacity of Wide Body Configurations  24  In fact the actual variation in cargo carrying capacity for each aircraft type is much smaller than described by the coefficient of variation. This is due to the fact that the cargo hold configuration rarely contains the maximum possible number of containers or the maximum possible number of pallets. Most often a configuration which falls between these two extremes is used, thus reducing the variability.  The conclusion from this analysis is that a single configuration will adequately describe the cargo carrying capacity of each wide body aircraft type. The configurations of all cargo carrying aircraft and the sources of information used to derive these configurations are provided in Appendix 3p-73.  Wide Body Baggage Analysis  Baggage occupies a large proportion of the cargo hold space on passenger aircraft. For wide body aircraft, baggage is packed in containers and will occupy most of the container spaces available.  For example, on a 747-400, 10 to 12 of the 14 container spaces  available will be occupied by baggage—in some instances all containers will be occupied by baggage leaving only pallet spaces for cargo transportation.  The average number of containers of baggage was modeled by multiplying the seating capacity of the aircraft by a passenger load factor, the number of bags per passenger, and dividing by the number of bags per container. The baggage containers were subtracted from the number of containers in the cargo hold configuration to yield the number of containers available for cargo. (See equation 3) Since baggage is not packed on pallets, all of the pallet spaces in the cargo configuration are available for cargo.  A number of sources were used to collect the data required to calculate the average number of containers occupied by baggage.  The seating capacity of each aircraft was  collected from a various sources described in Appendix 3-p73. The average passenger load factor for the airlines servicing YVR was calculated to be 70%—this value was used  25  for all flights.  Load factor data was collected from International Civil Aviation  Organizations data set entitled Traffic by Flight Stage.  The number of bags per passenger is a function of the sector that the flight is servicing. The standards used by airline analysts were used for this analysis and are provided below. Sector  Bags per Passenger  Domestic  1.2  Transborder  1.5  International  1.8  Table 4: Bags per Passenger by Sector  The number of bags per container was estimated by managers from the two ramp handler companies servicing Y V R . Both agreed that 45 bags per container was a good estimate to use as an average. The range of 40 to 50 was given by both with confidence.  4.1.2.2 Narrow Body A ircraft Capacity  Since narrow body aircraft have no container or pallet spaces, modeling the cargo carrying capacity of narrow body aircraft was done by multiplying bulk hold volume allocated to cargo by the average packing density of the cargo carried. The equations outlined in equation 4: narrow body cargo capacity, were used to model the cargo carrying capacity of narrow body aircraft  There are two main issues with respect to modeling the cargo carrying capacity of narrow body aircraft—estimating the average bulk hold volume occupied by baggage and estimating the average packing density of cargo stored in a bulk hold.  26  cr = ( V ? - V ? " S ) * P »  •  Where : V* = The bulk hold volume on aircraft t ype i bag  v  _ ^ T  e  a v e r a  g  e  bulk hold volume occupied by baggage on aircraft i  p - The average density of bulk load cargo b  Where : n. - The number of containers of baggage (as calculated for WB aircraft) v = The volume of a container R = The bulk hold packing reduction factor c  bM  y  "-huik  Where : w = The weight of a " full" container (not the maximum load) v = The volume of a container R = The bulk hold packing reduction factor c  c  bulk  Equation 4: Narrow Body Cargo Capacity  Narrow Body Baggage Analysis  The volume of bulk hold capacity occupied by baggage was modeled by first calculating the number of containers that would be required to transport the average load of baggage for a given narrow body aircraft. The number of containers was then multiplied by the volume of a container and divided by a reduction factor. A reduction factor is used to model the packing inefficiency of a bulk hold volume in comparison to container packing. The number of baggage containers was calculated using the model described in the wide body aircraft capacity section.  The bulk hold packing reduction factor was estimated at 70% through interviews with managers from the two ramp handler companies that service YVR. Both managers  27  indicated that estimating this factor was difficult, however they were confident that the value would be in the range from 65% to 75%.  This baggage volume was then subtracted from the bulk hold volume of the aircraft to yield the volume remaining for cargo transportation. The bulk hold volumes of each aircraft were collected from various sources described in Appendix 3-p73.  Bulk Hold Packing Density  The bulk hold packing density was estimated by multiplying the average density of a full container by the bulk hold packing reduction factor.  The assumptions with this  calculation are that the properties of the cargo stored in containers are similar to that stored in the bulk hold of narrow body aircraft and that the packing inefficiency that is found with baggage is the same for cargo. These assumptions and the resulting cargo capacities were verified for "reasonableness" with an independent cargo handler servicing YVR.  4.L2.3 All Freight Aircraft  Capacity  All freight aircraft carry the majority of their cargo in pallets and containers, however there is also a significant amount of bulk hold volume available for cargo transportation. The pallet and container configurations for all freight aircraft were modelled in the same manner as wide body aircraft and the bulk hold volume for all freight aircraft was modelled in the same manner as narrow body aircraft. Since all freight aircraft carry no passenger, no baggage containers or bulk volume was subtracted from the aircraft configuration.  4.2 Model Results  28  Provided in this section is a summary of the cargo carrying capacity of the Y V R flight network, a scenario analysis around key input parameters, and an analysis of the effect of increased flight services on network cargo capacity. 4.2.1 Flight Network Cargo Capacity Using the best estimate or expected value of each input parameter the following results for the year 2000 broken down by aircraft class and sector were obtained.  Y V R 2000 network cargo capacity by cargo type andaircraft type 450000 400000 350000 §> 3 0 0 0 0 0 b  ™ •o <o o>  250000 200000  c o  150000  "  100000  i  50000  i—i  0 Widebody  Narrowbody  Integrator  Freighter  • c o n t a i n e r s & pallets • bulk c a r g o  Figure 8: Flight Network Cargo Capacity by Aircraft Type  The total cargo carrying capacity of the network of flights is calculated at approximately 720,000 tonnes. However, according to cargo handlers, due to the fact that all cargo transported by narrow body passenger aircraft is done so in bulk holds, the usefulness of this capacity is significantly less than cargo carrying capacity of wide body and all freight aircraft . The amount of cargo actually shipped in narrow body passenger aircraft is very 9  small, and narrow body capacity is not counted by cargo handlers in forecasts of cargo tonnage. Ignoring the capacity from narrow body passenger aircraft, the sum of wide body and all freight aircraft capacity was calculated at approximately 550,000 tonnes.  All freight aircraft include freighter and integrator flights.  29  Cargo Carrying Capacity of YVR Flight Network-Year 2000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000  o g •  100,000 50,000 International • Wide  CARGO TONNES Wide Narrow Freighter Integrators Total  Cargo % of Total Wide  • Narrow  Transborder • Freighter  Domestic • Integrators  International  Transborder  Domestic  Total  172,414  40,951  199,875  413,240  847  64,944  111,097  176,889  23,136  840  240  24,216  -  34,528  73,797  108,325  196,398  141,263  385,009  722,670  International  Transborder  Domestic  Total  23.9%  5.7%  27.7%  57.2%  Narrow  0.1%  9.0%  15.4%  24.5%  Freighter  3.2%  0.1%  0.0%  3.4%  Integrators  0.0%  4.8%  10.2%  15.0%  27.2%  19.5%  53.3%  Total  100.0%  Figure 9: Flight Network Cargo Capacity by Sector and Aircraft Type  The majority of this capacity (57.2% of total) is available in the belly of wide body passenger aircraft. A small amount of this wide body capacity (5.7% of total) services transborder airports. This is because there are very few regular wide body services to US cities.  30  The wide body capacity servicing domestic cities and international cities are of equal magnitude, 172,414 and 199,875 tonnes respectively for the year 2000. Over 75% of the wide body flights within Canada are operated by A i r Canada and the vast majority of 10  them are operated between Vancouver and Toronto. It is unclear from the schedule whether these flights service a route which includes an international destination.  There are very few freighters servicing Y V R (0.2% of cargo carrying flight moments), resulting in a small cargo capacity contribution from freighter aircraft (3.2% of total). There is only one regular wide body freighter service operating at Y V R . Percentage of Total Cargo Carrying Flight Movements by Aircraft Class ^2.4%  |  n  Wide  mNarrow  Freighter  a  •Integrators j  Figure 10: Cargo Movements by Aircraft Type  Integrator movements represent 15.0% of cargo capacity with 2.4% of cargo carrying flight movements. Transborder service represents one-third of this capacity (4.8%) of total) and domestic service represents two-thirds (10.2% of total).  There are no  international integrator movements from Y V R .  4.2.2 Scenario Analysis The model used to calculate the cargo carrying capacity of the network of flights that services Y V R involved the estimation of many input parameters each of which has  All flights operated by Canadian Airlines are classified as Air Canada flights due to the merger of the  31  uncertainty associated with it. Sensitivity analysis was performed to check the sensitivity of the cargo carrying capacity of the flight network to uncertainty in the input parameters. Each input parameter was changed by 1%, holding all other parameters constant, and the percentage change in the network capacity was noted. This analysis was also repeated for changes of 5% and 10% to ensure that the change in output over the change in input was a linear relationship. Below is a table of the results of this sensitivity analysis. % Change in Cargo Capacity of Flight Network due to 1% Change in Input Parameters Load factor  -0.60%  Bags per passenger (Domestic)  -0.29%  Bags per passenger (Transborder)  -0.19%  B a g s p e r p a s s e n g e r (International)  -0.12%  Bags per container  0.59%  Bulk hold p a c k i n g reduction factor  0.63%  T h e a v e r a g e w e i g h t o f a full c o n t a i n e r  0.52%  T h e a v e r a g e w e i g h t o f a full pallet  0.47%  Bulk c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y o f W i d e B o d y J e t s  0.01%  Table 5: Sensitivity Analysis  The following observations can be made from the above sensitivity analysis. First, none of the changes in the input parameter values caused a change in the flight network capacity of larger than one percent. This means that changes in every input parameter, keeping all other input parameters constant, create smaller percentage changes in the total capacity. Second, changes in the number of bags per passenger and the bulk carrying capacity of wide body jets have a small effect on the cargo capacity of flight network, therefore these parameters should not be included in a scenario analysis.  Of the remaining five parameters the load factor should be eliminated from the scenario analysis.  Since the value used for the load factor was calculated using data from an  ICOA data set, a reputable source, confidence can be placed in the value used.  32  Scenario analysis was constructed for the remaining four parameters to determine the accuracy of the network capacity results presented. Below is a table showing the mean value of each parameter, the range that was tested using scenario analysis and a description of the data source.  Parameter Number of bags per container  Mean Value  Range  45  (40 , 5 0 )  Source Interviews with r a m p h a n d l e r  T h e a v e r a g e w e i g h t o f a full c o n t a i n e r  913  (806 , 1020) Data received from cargo h a n d l e r — A p p e n . 3  T h e a v e r a g e w e i g h t o f a full pallet  1797  (1550 , 2044) Data received from cargo h a n d l e r — A p p e n . 3  Bulk hold p a c k i n g r e d u c t i o n factor  0.7  (0.65 , 0.75) Interviews with r a m p h a n d l e r  Table 6: Key Input Parameters  For the number of bags per container and the bulk hold packing reduction factor, the mean value represents the "best guess" of the ramp handlers interviewed, and the range represents the range of values that the ramp handlers felt the actual value was included in. For the average weight of a full container and the average weight of a full pallet, the mean values were calculated from a data set of the weights of 37 full pallets and 30 full containers. The range corresponds to the 95% confidence interval of the mean value.  Two scenarios were generated to estimate the accuracy of the results presented. The first scenario shows the cargo carrying capacity of the network when each of the four parameters tested is at the lower bound of its respective range. The second scenario shows the cargo carrying capacity of the network when each parameter is at the upper bound of its respective range. Below is a summary of results. SCENARIO ANALYSIS (capacity in tonnes) Flight N e t w o r k C a p a c i t y  Flight N e t w o r k C a p a c i t y (minus n a r r o w b o d y c a p a c i t y )  Lower Bound Mean Value Upper Bound 556,679  722,670  901,713  -23.0%  ~  24.7%  456,809  545,781  640,124  -16.3%  —  17.3%  Table 7: Scenario Analysis  33  This scenario analysis shows that the flight network analysis results can be confidently reported with an accuracy of +/- 25% for the entire network and +/- 17.5% for the network of wide body, freighter, and integrator aircraft.  To improve the accuracy of the results more data describing the input parameters would be required. A l l of the input parameters were estimated using small data sets or estimates from experienced cargo handlers. (See Appendix 3 for a description of the data source of each parameter) These methods of collecting information are prone to inaccuracy.  Since the data required to more accurately model these would have to be collected from independent cargo agents, not departments within the Airport Authority, improving the accuracy of these results will be difficult. The cargo agents involve in collecting the data for this analysis saw little value in these results for their business decision making and therefore were reluctant to spend time assisting this analysis or to sharing what they perceived as sensitive data describing their business operations.  This was a major  challenge in completing this analysis and will be a major challenge in improving the accuracy of the results. 4.2.3 Additional Capacity Analysis  In the year 2000, 252,000 tonnes of cargo were transported through Y V R . Ignoring the capacity of narrow body passenger aircraft, the cargo carrying capacity of Y V R ' s flight network is calculated at approximately 550,000 tonnes creating an average load factor of 46%.  11  Narrow body passenger aircraft were not included in this analysis since,  according to cargo handlers, the amount of cargo actually transported in these aircraft is very small and therefore could not be used effectively to increase cargo volumes shipped through Y V R .  In order to increase the actual cargo tonnage shipped through Y V R either the load factor or the cargo carrying capacity of the network must increase. Below is an ISO-tonnage '' The average load factor was calculated by dividing the actual tonnage shipped by the wide body and all freight aircraft capacity calculated  34  graph which plot the combinations of average load factor and cargo capacity which combine to a total shipment tonnage of 600,000; 500,000; and 400,000 tonnes.  YVR Cargo 2000 - ISO Tonnage Plots (TonnageCapacity vs. Average Load Factor) Year 2000:  1,350, 000 1,250, 000  \  Capacity = 545,781 Tonnes \  Average Load F a c i a - 0.46  1,150, 000 1,050, 000  600,000  950, 000 o J—  500,000  850, 000 ..  750, 000  400,000  650, 000  ^ ^ ^ ^  550, 000 0.45  0.55  0.65  0.75  0.85  0.95  1.05  1.15  Average Load Factor  Figure 11: Iso-Tonnage Curves  The table below describes the additional capacity that would be added to the network by increasing the flights servicing Y V R in different aircraft classes. The average aircraft capacities were calculated by dividing the total capacity of that aircraft class by the total number of flight movements by that aircraft class.  Per Year Additional Tons of Network Capacity  Per Air Craft Weekly Service Daily Service  Average Wide Body Passenger Aircraft  13.9 T  1,442 T/year  10,120  Average Wide Body All Freight Aircraft  70  7,280  51,100  Average Narrow Body All Freight Aircraft  30  3,120  21,900  **The capacity calculated for a weekly (or daily) service includes an inbound and an outbound flight per week (or day) respectively Table 8: Additional Capacity  4.2.4 Conclusion To achieve the strategic goal of doubling cargo volumes a significant increase in both the load factor and cargo carrying capacity of the flight network must be achieved. Since  35  cargo carried in the belly of passenger aircraft constitutes a secondary revenue stream for the operator, increases in the number of wide body passenger aircraft will be tied directly to the passenger operations strategy. Cargo carried in wide and narrow body all freight aircraft, however, represents a primary revenue stream and may be more easily targeted for additional infrastructure or services. In addition, all freight aircraft have significantly more cargo carrying capacity over wide body passenger aircraft—over 50,000 tonnes of annual cargo carrying capacity can be generated by a daily service of a single wide body freighter.  Even if the capacity can be increased, increases in load factor would still be required to achieve the strategic goal. Currently, the average load factor is calculated at 46% after accounting for both baggage volumes transported and the space limitations of the cargo holds of the aircraft. It is difficult to conclude whether or not this represents an operational issue which makes over 50% of the cargo carrying space unusable or if there simply is not enough cargo to fill the capacity of the current network. 4.3 Further Work for Understanding the Cargo Capacity of the Y V R Flight Network A load factor of 46% indicates that there is a large amount of unused cargo carrying capacity in the current flight network. The question is whether this capacity is useful for the demand on cargo transportation routes (i.e. is there a mismatch between the supply and demand of capacity).  In order to answer this question, the actual air cargo  movements must be mapped against the capacity.  The data required for this type of comparison would have to be collected from the major cargo carriers servicing YVR. The fact that the Airport Authority does not internally posses such data sets, and airlines may not see the usefulness of this analysis for their operations, will make collecting the data for this analysis difficult.  36  V . Transhipment Cargo Facility Analysis  The goal of the transhipment cargo facility analysis is to determine the necessity and potential value of developing an airside transhipment cargo facility at YVR. Airport Authority management has chosen two potential sites for this facility, both located in the west chevron expansion of the international terminal building. (See map below)  The key questions to be answered by this analysis are: 1. ) Would an airside facility dedicated to transhipment cargo staging be valuable for cargo agents at YVR? 2. ) What services should be offered by an airside transhipment cargo facility? 3. ) What would be the demand for an airside transhipment cargo facility at YVR? 4. ) How much space should be allocated to service this demand?  Figure 12: Map of Transhipment Cargo Facility Location  37  5.1 Introduction and Overview Transhipment cargo is cargo that is flown into YVR, staged for a connecting flight and flown out of YVR (The transhipment process is described in section 2.3.2.2) Transhipment cargo can be staged either at an airside storage area or at an airside access warehouse.  Currently no cargo dedicated airside storage space exists at YVR. Therefore, transhipment cargo on airside is staged at space surrounding the aircraft gates; space intended for staging the equipment used to load / unload the aircraft. Due to a lack of cargo-dedicated space on airside, potentially large amounts of transhipment cargo are being transported to and from airside access warehouses, which would represent unnecessary and non-value added work.  In addition to eliminating unnecessary cargo movement, a transhipment cargo facility could provide other value added services. For example shelter from the elements could reduce the damage or spoilage of staged cargo.  In order to analyze the transhipment cargo facility development decision, information from three main sources were collected. First, a survey was sent to representatives of all cargo handlers at YVR. The purpose of this survey was to collect information regarding the perceived value of such a facility by cargo agents. Second, follow up interviews with survey respondents were conducted to collect additional data on the demand for a transhipment facility. Third, site visits on airside were conducted to observe airside operational rules and evaluate potential operational issues that could arise with such a facility.  5.2 Summary of Survey Results A transhipment cargo survey was sent to representatives of all airlines, ground handlers, and integrators. Freight forwarders were disregardedfromthis study due to the fact that  38  they do not participate in airside operations and therefore could not be direct users of a transhipment cargo facility.  The goal of the survey was to gain an understanding of the following: •  The interest in the cargo community for a transhipment cargo facility  •  The significant costs associated with transhipment cargo and the ability of a transhipment cargo facility to alleviate these costs  •  The services that should be offered at a transhipment cargo facility  A copy of the survey can be found in Appendix 4-p81  A l l responses received from integrator representatives indicated that this facility is not applicable to their business. This result was expected, since no integrator operates a hub at Y V R , making integrator transhipment cargo volumes very low. In addition, large integrators own and operate ramp space adjacent to their warehousing facilities, making a cargo staging facility at the international terminal of no value.  Integrator cargo volumes made up 21% of Y V R cargo volumes in 2000.  O f the  remaining 79% of cargo volumes, 99% (78% of total) are transported by the major carriers of four ground handlers; Air Canada Cargo, Aeroground, Mega International, and Cargo Services Centre. Table 9 summarizes how each airline and ground handler responded to the survey with respect to the value of the transhipment cargo facility. In addition, the percentage of Y V R cargo volumes transported by each agent is indicated.  Eight airlines responded to the survey representing 81% of applicable volumes (64% of 12  total Y V R volumes). Airlines representing 75% of applicable volumes (59% of total Y V R volumes) responded that a transhipment facility would be beneficial to alleviating costs associated with transhipment cargo handling.  Integrator cargo volumes were identified as not applicable and made up 2 1 % of cargo volumes. All cargo volume information quoted represents 2 0 0 0 values. 12  39  Ground Handler  On-line Airlines  Air Canada Cargo (56.5%)  Aeroground (12.5%)  (V)  (DNR)  Mega International (5.0%)  (DNR)  Cargo Services Center (3.9%)  (NV)  Off-line Airlines  Air C a n a d a (52.8%)  (V)  China Airlines (1.7%)  (V)  EVA  (DNR)  Air (1.3%)  Air New Z e a l a n d (0.2%)  (V)  Korean Airlines (0.5%)  (V)  Cathay Pacific (5.2%)  (NV)  Cargo Lux (n/a)  (DNR)  Royal Cargo / C a n a d a 3000 (3.3%)  (V,  A s i a n a (n/a)  (DNR)  British Airways (2.4%)  (DNR)  Lan Chile (n/a)  (DNR)  Singapore Airlines (0.8%)  (DNR)  Air Nipon (n/a)  (DNR)  China Air (0.8%)  (DNR)  Lufthansa (2.8%)  (DNR)  J a p a n Airlines (2.2%)  (V)  K L M (3.0%)  (DNR)  Air Transat (0.9%)  (DNR)  Continental Airlines (<0.01 %)  (DNR)  Martin Air (n/a)  (DNR)  KEY: DNR: V : NV:  Did Not Respond Responded that transhipment cargo facility would be of value for their operations Responded that transhipment cargo facility would be of no value for their operations  Table 9: Survey Summary  Two of the four ground handlers responded representing 76% of applicable cargo volumes (61% of total Y V R volumes). The two ground handlers who did not respond to the survey were contacted and did not wish to participate in a telephone interview regarding their transhipment cargo operations. Airline Operators Survey Responces (Weighted by 2000 Cargo Volumes)  Ground Handlers Survey Responces (Weighted by 2000 Cargo Volumes) Integrators  (NA) 21%  Valuable 57%  DdNot Respond  Valuable 59%  15%  A V - Applicable Volumes  A V - Applicable Volumes  Figure 13: Survey Response Summary  Of  those  indicating that  a transhipment  cargo  facility  would  be valuable,  damage/spoilage, transportation, and handling were identified as significant costs of  40  transhipment cargo operations. Theses respondents indicated that a transhipment facility would be beneficial to alleviating the costs that they identified. % of Respondents Weighted by Bigtbie Cargo \falurres Indicating Significant Costs Associated with TuBlMuncnt Cai go  % of Respondents Incficatirig Significant Costs Associated with Transhipment Cargo 100%  100%  80%  80%  Immi i  60% 40% 20%  60%  Damage  imam  40%  I P S  Iff  0%  ?9tfi  fpsjlg  Clti  20% 0%  Transport  Harding  Transport  Damage  Handling  Figure 14: Significant Transhipment Cargo Costs  Damage, Airside transportation and handling were all identified as significant costs, however when weighted by the percentage of eligible cargo the cost of handling is seen 13  to be considerably less significant to damage and airside transportation.  The survey provided five choices of damage and spoilage causes, rain damage, heat damage for perishables, mishandling, theft, and other. No survey responses indicated that theft was a cause of damage for their company or gave any other cause for damage or spoilage other than the choices offered. If the responses are weighted by eligible cargo volumes the damage caused by rain is by far the most significant with agents representing 98% of eligible cargo volume indicating it as a major cause of damage and spoilage. %of Respondents Weighted by Eligible Cargo Volumes Indicating Damage / Spoilage Costs Significant  %of Respondents Indicating Damage / Spoilage Costs Significant 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 40%  M  40%  20%  20%  0%  0%  i  Rain  m  60%  t Heat  i l l Mshandling  Theft  lip llil Rain  Heat  Mshandling  Theft  Figure 15: Major Causes of Cargo Damage Eligible cargo: transhipment cargo of respondents who indicated that a transhipment cargo facility would be of value for their operations 13  41  The survey asked respondents to rank a list of potential services that a transhipment cargo facility may provide. Consistent with the responses indicating damage as a key value driver, shelter from the elements was indicated as the most valuable service. Average Ranking of Services (6 indicating most valuable 1 indicating least valuable) 6  -T  —  —  turn  Hi Shelter  -  §1  m  Security  i  m Refrgeration  l  $1 fab*  Repacking  Customs  FTZ  Average Ranking of Services Weighted by Eligible Cargo Volumes (6 indicating most valuable 1 indicating least valuable)  mm  w&  rap  p WA Shelter  m lH PI Security  *  •  Refrigeration  Repacking  HI  me  Customs  FTZ  Figure 16: Key Transhipment Cargo Facility Services  It is important to note that the scale that is represented in the plots above is not linear. This means that a weighting of 6 compared to 5 is not the same as a weighting of 3 compared to 2. The respondents to the survey were simply asked to rank the services from most important to least important.  In fact follow up interviews with survey  respondents representing over 96% of eligible cargo volumes indicated that shelter from the elements was the only important service that a transhipment cargo facility could offer.  42  5.3 Value / Cost Trade - off From the survey results and follow-up interviews with cargo handlers, it has been identified that the only service offering required for transhipment cargo is a sheltered staging area.  The following section qualifies the value and cost of developing a  transhipment cargo staging area.  5.3.1 Value Drivers  Four value drivers were identified through the transhipment cargo facility analysis. •  Reduced damage / spoilage  •  Reduced airside transportation  •  Reduced congestion of equipment staging areas near ramps  •  Cargo community public relations  Reduced damage / spoilage:  The main value driver of a sheltered transhipment cargo staging is the reduction of damage / spoilage of staged transhipment cargo. Of those responding to the survey, 66% indicated that damage / spoilage was significant cost associated with transhipment cargo. In addition, 83% indicated that shelter from the elements would be the most valuable service. Agents representing over 96% of applicable volumes indicated that shelter was the only valuable service.  A data set describing the cost of damage for YVR cargo  handlers was not available and therefore this cost could not be quantified.  Reduced airside transportation:  Since the facility would be located under the international terminal building, transportation to and from an airside access warehouse could be minimized. Summarizing Question 5 of the survey, 22% of eligible transhipment cargo is transported to an airside access warehouse, and 98% of this cargo is transported for storage or shelter from the elements. This represents approximately 10 pieces per day on average. Since cargo can  43  be transported up to four pieces at a time on airside this represents between 2 and 4 trips to and from an airside access warehouse per day on average.  Transportation times between the wide body gates and cargo village depend on the gate and location in cargo village as well as the route taken. A small sample of transportation times collected during a one day airside traffic study show that the transportation time between the wide body gates and cargo village is between 7 and 13 minutes. The average times collected for each of two routes are summarized in Appendix 4.  Although transportation time is not a significant value driver with current volumes, as transhipment volume increases, and storage space on airside becomes increasingly constrained, the amount of required transportation will increase.  Reduced congestion of equipment staging areas at ramps  Developing a transhipment cargo dedicated staging area on airside would eliminate longer term staging of cargo near the ramps. From observation on airside, staged cargo makes up a very small percentage of equipment stored at the staging areas near the terminal ramps. Re-locating transhipment cargo to a centralized staging facility will not alleviate any congestion at these staging areas.  Cargo community relations  Since the Airport Authority has only recently begun to focus on cargo operations at YYR, developing cargo dedicated space on airside would show the Authority's support for the cargo community. This could go a long way in improving the flow of information between cargo agents and the Airport Authority increasing the Authority's ability to plan for cargo operations.  5.3.2 Cost Drivers  Four costs drivers were identified through the transhipment cargo facility analysis.  44  •  Opportunity cost of the space  •  Development costs  •  Operations and maintenance costs  •  Increased traffic at the International Terminal Building  Opportunity Cost of the space  The opportunity cost of the space is the most significant cost driver. Space under the terminal buildings is a very scarce resource that could be used for a number of activities. Under the current infrastructure, space has been allocated to office usage, equipment storage, equipment maintenance facilities, and baggage sorting equipment. Our project sponsor, VP Operations for the Vancouver International Airport Authority, has indicated that with the current demand for the facility, the opportunity cost will not be prohibitive to allocating this space. Demand is discussed in the section 3.3.  Development costs  Through surveys and follow up interviews, cargo agents have indicated that no services in addition to a sheltered staging area are required for transhipment cargo. A sheltered staging area requires no additional development costs to be incurred for the west chevron international terminal building expansion.  The only requirement would be lanes  indicating where cargo should be staged—the cost for this is negligible.  Operations and maintenance costs  The operating costs associated with a staging area are negligible. Since no refrigeration, security, or other services are required, the ongoing costs of a sheltered staging area are negligible.  45  Increased traffic at the International Terminal Building  (ITB)  A transhipment cargo staging area at the ITB would re-route the majority of transhipment cargo movements. The traffic associated with this cargo could cause congestion at the ITB. Traffic information was collected for the intersection near the ITB during a one day airside traffic study. At peak times 35 vehicles moved through this intersection in each 5 minute period, only 10% of which were cargo related.  The number of movements  associated with transhipment cargo are spaced through out the peak period and would have almost no effect on ITB traffic patterns. 5.3.3 Summary  The main value driver of a transhipment staging facility is reduction in damage / spoilage and the reduction in airside transportation of transhipment cargo . Even though the value is not quantifiable with current information, it is material and offset only by the opportunity cost of the space.  5.4 Demand for a Transhipment Cargo Facility In order to understand the demand for a transhipment cargo staging area the inventory build up of transhipment cargo at Y V R over the day must be understood.  Data  representing approximately 45% of eligible transhipment cargo volumes was collected for nine days in July 2001. The sample available represents the most operationally critical transhipment pieces. These pieces make up the transhipment cargo ship sets with the shortest turn around times.  Analyzing this data will give a lower bound of the  demand for a transhipment cargo staging area.  The data maps the inbound and outbound flight times for the cargo represented in the sample. Figure 14 shows an example of a connection plot which shows the inventory of transhipment cargo at Y V R represented in the sample for Jul 10 . The inventory is th  incremented up for each transhipment cargo piece 14  14  which arrives at Y V R and is  A cargo piece is a pallet or a container  46  decremented for each transhipment cargo piece which departs YVR. The plots do not show flow through cargo which is not unloaded from the aircraft while at YVR. Plots 15  for all nine days collected are provided in Appendix 4-p84.  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - July 10th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx. 45% of Transhipment Cargo 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0  Total pieces of non-flowthrough transhipment cargo = 27 Flow through = 3  1 m csV oj?  n& r P o& • ' ^ ^ ^  &  -<S  >  r?> «S> r S  &  Figure 14: Transhipment Cargo Connection Plot  Below is a summary of all of the transhipment cargo data collected. Date July 9  Pieces of Transhipment Cargo  Flow Through Cargo  Total Non-Flow Through Cargo  Peak YVR Inventory  31  11  20  14  July 10  th  11  3  27  19  July 12  lh  20  15  32  18  July 13  th  14  0  26  13  July 15  th  30  0  37  25  July 16  th  3  0  25  15  July 17  th  27  20  21  17  July 18  th  39  14  25  18  July 19  th  35  •9  26  18  34.6  8  26.6  17.4  47  20  37  25  lh  Average Max  Table 10: Transhipment Cargo Data—Sample Representing 45% of Transhipment Cargo  Flow-through cargo is transhipment cargo where the inbound flight and outbound flight are physically the same aircraft and therefore "flow-through" the airport with out being unloaded. 15  47  Scaling these results linearly to represent 100% of transhipment cargo volumes yields a lower bound for the facilities peak inventory, the important demand parameter for sizing the staging area. Table 11 shows the results of linearly scaling the data sample collected. Total Transhipment  Flow-through  Facility Through -put  Facility Peak Inventory  Max Scaled to 100%  104  44  82  55  Avg.Scaled to 100%  77  18  60  40  Pieces of Cargo  Table 11: Current Transhipment Demand  From this analysis we can see that the average peak demand over the days observed was approximately 40 pieces, and the maximum peak demand over the days observed was approximately 55 pieces.  The west chevron expansion of the ITB is scheduled for completion in January of 2005, and the Airport Authority has a strategic goal for cargo which stretches to 2010. It is therefore important to understand how the demand for transhipment cargo staging space will change over those periods.  Over the past 8 years the overall cargo growth has been strong with an average rate of growth of 6% slightly less than the 7.4% rate of growth needed to double cargo volumes by 2010. It has been suggested by a number of cargo agents that transhipment cargo has seen a higher rate of growth than import or export cargo. This could be attributed to the fact that growth import and export cargo should be highly correlated with growth in the B C economy which has had growth of 2.2% per year over the past 10 years [British Columbia Business Summit]  Since no data is available to support a growth rate for transhipment cargo a number of growth scenarios are presented. Table 12 shows the average facility peak inventory in 2005 and 2010 under a number of growth scenarios.  48  Average Peak Inventory at Transhipment Staging Facility Annual Growth Factor 2005 2010  4%  6%  8%  10%  12%  47  50  54  59  63  57  68  80  94  111  Table 12: Transhipment Cargo Demand Scenarios  5.5 Required Space Allocation The space required for a transhipment staging area includes space taken up by access roads and structural pillars.  To estimate the space required, the configuration of  structural pillars present in the current ITB infrastructure was used.  Figure 18 is a  graphic which depicts the proposed layout of the staging area. 60 m  Structural pillars Figure 18: Transhipment Cargo Facility Layout Concept  The sides of the staging area are left open to allow access from both sides of the ITB. The spacing of the 1 m diameter structural pillars of 10m X 6.2m (centre-to-centre) allows for a 9m access road for through traffic moving from one side of the ITB to the other, a 5.2m cargo road for cargo tugs only, and two banks of cargo lanes. Each cargo lane is 3m wide and 18.5 m long allowing for a set of four pallet carriers to be stored.  49  The facility depicted above has a maximum capacity of 120 pieces and has a floor print of 2700 m\ A pallet carrier has an area of approximately 12.25 m 2 making the space A  utilization factor for this layout approximately 1.85.  Table 12 shows the space requirements for facilities of different capacities with a utilization factor of 1.85.  Estimated Space Allocation Requirement for Transhipment Cargo Staging Area Capacity (pieces)  80  100  120  140  160  Staged Cargo at 75% efficiency  60  75  90  105  120  1800  2250  2700  3200  3600  Space allocation (rrf)  Table 13: Transhipment Cargo Staging Area Space Allocation  Operationally the space allocated will not be used at 100% capacity. This is because the cargo lanes are sized for ship sets of four pieces, (the maximum number of cargo pieces that can be towed at one time) and all ship sets are not always four pieces. Smaller ship sets still take up a cargo lane. From observation of ramp storage space utilization, the size of cargo ship sets, and discussions with warehouse agents, an efficiency factor of 75%) was determined a reasonable estimate.  50  VI. Conclusion 6.1 Project Summary The goal of this project was to provide information to the Airport Authority to support strategic decision making with respect to cargo operations planning. Through end-to-end process mapping of all major processes in air cargo operations, an in-depth understanding of the activities that cargo agents participate in was shown. Two key resources were then selected for further investigation.  The cargo carrying capacity of the network of flights which services YVR is a key resources capability to understand. In order to understand how passenger operations and cargo operations interact as well as the requirements of the flight network to meet Airport Authority strategic goals, quantifying this capacity was necessary.  The transhipment cargo facility was identified as a potential lever to create a process improvement in the transhipment cargo process. By providing a sheltered staging area for transhipment cargo within the international terminal building, transportation of transhipment cargo could be minimized and the damage / spoilage of staged cargo could be reduced.  6.2 Further Work for Understanding Cargo Operations Through the process mapping of cargo operations a number of resources utilized by cargo agents were identified (see table 1), two of which were analyzed in detail in this report. Further work could be conducted in analyzing other resources used by cargo agents. A principal candidate for further investigation is airside access warehouse space. All cargo transported by air at YVR is processed at an airside access warehouse. Since all cargo must be processed at one of these warehouses, airside warehouse space is a key candidate for a future bottleneck of cargo growth. In addition, since the airport authority is responsible for infrastructure development at YVR, understanding the issues  51  surrounding airside warehouse space could provide key insight when developing a cargo development plan.  6.3 Commentary on Planning for Cargo Operations The Airport Authority faces a number of challenges with respect to planning for cargo operations. The difficulties of planning in this environment are highlighted by first looking at a general definition of capacity planning.  Capacity planning, in the general case, involves providing the optimal, or most profitable, set of resources to service a forecasted demand, recognizing that there may exist a relationship between the resources provided and the demand seen.  This general  definition of capacity planning illustrates three major challenges that the Airport Authority faces with respect to planning for cargo demand; demand forecasting, asset specificity, and system profitability.  There are three main issues for the Airport Authority with respect to demand forecasting cargo volumes. First, since the Authority does not play a direct role in cargo processing, rather they provide infrastructure for independent cargo agents, they do not possess any internal information or data describing cargo volumes. Since they do not have internal data, they must rely on the data provided by independent agents, most of whom are wary of sharing sensitive data with outside organizations, making it very difficult to forecast cargo volume growth or decline.  Even when information is shared between cargo  carriers and the Airport Authority, the type of information gathered may not be robust enough to make informed decisions. Since cargo transportation represents a secondary revenue stream for passenger aircraft, (approximately 80% of YVR cargo is transported by passenger airlines) the information collected to describe cargo volumes may not be a priority for these operators and therefore may not provide an adequate source of operational data.  Second, cargo demand is not homogeneous with respect to the resource requirements. For example, perishable goods require refrigeration, in-transit international cargo requires  52  bonded warehouse space, transshipment cargo requires facilities close to the terminal which is not required for import or export cargo, time sensitive cargo transported by integrators has different handling requirements and therefore requires different infrastructure than regular cargo. This lack of homogeneity in cargo demand forces the Airport Authority to not simply forecast cargo volumes in aggregate, but to develop forecasts for the cargo components which have different resource requirements. Third, cargo movement at the airport is a peak load problem. This requires understanding not only the components of cargo volume on an annual, weekly, or even daily basis, but understanding the variability in demand for resources through out the day. The data richness required to understand cargo volume at this level is very difficult for the Airport Authority to collect from cargo agents.  The second major cargo capacity planning challenge for the Airport Authority is caused by the lack of asset specificity.  For all resources utilized in the cargo transportation  process, with the exception of warehouse space, cargo transportation shares capacity with other non-cargo processes. For example, road infrastructure is shared with passenger movement to and from the terminal, airside staging areas are shared with aircraft loading and unloading equipment, etc. The most serious example of this is the cargo capacity of the flight network servicing YYR.  The capacity of cargo volume that the network of aircraft servicing YVR can carry is a hard constraint for cargo throughput at YVR. This constraint is one which the Airport Authority has no direct control over. This issue is compounded by the fact that cargo is a secondary revenue source for passenger airlines and therefore plays no role in route planning. Since passenger aircraft transport the majority of cargo at YVR this poses a serious challenge because there is no way to control the matching of the supply of network  capacity  to  the  demand for transportation between  any particular  origin/destination pair. The only remedy that the Airport Authority has for this issue is to build infrastructure to attract all cargo aircraft to YVR—this would involve a major strategic change at YVR with respect to cargo planning.  53  The third major challenge that the Airport Authority faces with respect to cargo capacity planning, illustrated by the general definition described above, is the concept o f the optimal or most profitable in this environment.  In the traditional capacity planning  environment such as a manufacturing plant, there is a clear objective with respect to profitability, the objective is to maximize the difference between revenue associated with the goods produced and the cost to produce them taking the entire plant as the system. In the case of cargo planning and the Airport Authority the concept of profitability is not as simple.  There are a number of different optimal states that the Airport Authority could  attempt to drive towards. One alternative is to maximize system profit across all of the independent agents. This could however create new imbalances in profitability between agent roles potentially causing resentment towards the Airport Authority and reducing communication, a vital component to demand forecasting.  Another alternative is to  maximize the return to the local economy of any additional resources  developed.  Although this seems like a good choice given that the mandate of the Airport Authority is to provide service to the local community, this objective would be extremely difficult to measure and achieve. Since the Airport Authority does not "profit" directly from cargo transportation, defining the most suitable definition of profit maximization is a difficult challenge.  Although there are many challenges faced by the Airport Authority with respect to cargo operations planning, infrastructure planning for cargo operations, is a necessary activity for airport design.  The work outlined in this thesis will assist the Airport Authority in a  number of ways with respect to planning for cargo volumes. First, developing a detailed understanding o f the cargo process and the resources utilized was a key outcome of this work, and will be extremely valuable to the Airport Authority an all cargo planning activities.  Second, analyzing the issue o f flight network cargo capacity addressed the  most serious of the asset specificity challenges and outlined the need for all cargo aircraft servicing Y V R .  A n d third, analysis surrounding a transshipment cargo facility outlined  the need for dedicated resources for this particular component of cargo volumes.  54  There are still many research and business questions left to be analyzed in this environment. Provided in this thesis is a valuable framework for thinking about cargo operations planning, the process knowledge to base solid decisions upon, and a detailed analysis of two critical issues facing the Airport Authority with respect to cargo planning.  55  VI. References Airports Council International, < http://www.airports.org > British Columbia Business Summit, (1998) Final Report, < http://www.bcbusinesssummit.com >  International Civil Aviation Organization, (1998), Traffic by Flight Stage Data Set Intervistas Consulting Inc., (2000), Briefing Note: YVR Cargo Analysis of 2000 Cargo Traffic Leigh Fisher Associates, (1999), Comparative Airport Cargo Study for the Vancouver International Airport Turner, Sheelah, (2001), Analysis of Cargo at Vancouver International Airport: by Direction, Sector and Commodity Vancouver International Airport Authority, (1995), 1995 - 2015 Master Plan Vancouver International Airport Authority, < www.yvr.com >  56  Appendix 1: List of Airport Codes  Major Cargo Airports Airport Code  Airport Location  Cargo Tonnes (2000)  MEM HKG LAX NRT ANC SEL  Memphis, USA Hong Kong, China Los Angeles, USA Tokyo,Japan Anchorage, USA Seoul, Korea  2,489,000 2,267,000 2,054,000 1,933,000 1,884,000 1,874,000  Pacific North American Airports Airport Code  Airport Location  Cargo Tonnes (2000)  LAX SFO OAK ONT SEA PDX  Los Angeles, CA San Francisco, CA Oakland, CA Ontario, CA Seattle, WA Portland, OR  2,054,000 870,000 703,000 464,000 441,000 282,000  Source: Airport Council International  57  Appendix 2: Air Cargo Transportation Process Maps  1. General Cargo Movements a. Export Landside b. Export Airside-Landside Interface c. Export Airside d. Import Airside e. Import Airside-Landside Interface f. Import Landside g. Transshipment cargo processs 2. Integrator Movements a. Export b. Import  (.0  Vi U  o a,  X  w c o  ••a  a  -a * c o -g  ra ra  2 5  2E  o  .tl  "  <  o 0>  -a  c o c o  a  Xii  i-  <  o M es  C  3  .O  o  £  Q  '> 53^ Xi  Si  Htm  u  i  © a,  x  T3  .9 .S  3  T3  O  O  o  O  ti o  5  M  P-  O  C/3  u  +^  « » " >> 00  o o  o S ^ rt u  £Q © DX)  a>  M U o 'Eo >^ PH  S  o  CH  oo  o  ore cust ms he  u © a.  X  o  o  6-  1  a  u  iners onto  -a  CO  -  G cd a)  °1 a  u  O  03  -2 2 -3  Si  cd  E  o  S3  U t/j  o « OX)  M  o  13 o j .  -a  £  Q  4=  Appendix 3: Supporting Material for Flight Network Cargo Capacity Analysis  1. 2. 3. 4. 5.  Flight Network Capacity Mathematical Model Representation Input Parameter Table Graphical Summary of Flight Movements Distributions of Weights of "Full" Pallets and Containers Summary of Aircraft Data and Data Sources  68  Flight Network Cargo Capacity Mathematical Model Representation C a r g o C a r r y i n g Capacity of Flight Network Servicing Y V R  Where: C  = Total flight network cargo capacity in tonnes for the year 2000  T  cf = The average capacity of a " full" aircraft, for aircraft type i, where aircraft type i is a wide body cf = The average capacity of a" full" aircraft, for aircraft type i, where aircraft type i is a narrow body f  = Number o f flights o f aircraft type i over the year 2000  W i d e body Aircraft M o d e l  c =«-», )*w*+»/'*w;+ w  6  (  W6  Where: /zf = The number of container spaces on aircraft i «f = The average number of containers occupied by baggage for air type i wf = The average weight of a full container (not the maximum weight) nf - The number of pallet spaces on aircraft i w = The average weight of a full pallet (not the maximum weight) c  w = The average bulk hold allocation for cargo b  „t  _  P>* * bip L  n  Where : Pi = The seating capacity for aircraft i L = The average load factor n  bl  n  blc  = The average number of bags per person  = The average number of bags per container  N a r r o w B o d y Aircraft M o d e l  c,"=(vf-vf*)V Where: vf = The bulk hold volume on aircraft type i bug  y  _  average bulk hold volume occupied by baggage on aircraft i  p = The average density of bulk load cargo b  69  Where : wf = The number of containers of baggage (as calculated for WB aircraft) v = The volume of a container c  R  = The bulk hold packing reduction factor  bulk  Where: w = The average weight of a" full" container (not the maximum load) v = The volume of a container c  c  R  bulk  = The bulk hold packing reduction factor  Note: All freight aircraft are modeled in the same manner as wide body aircraft. However, since all freight aircraft carry no passenger, no baggage containers are subtracted from the capacity equation.  Input Parameter Table Parameter  Symbol  Cargo carrying flight count Number of container spaces on each WB aircraft Number of pallet spaces on each WB aircraft Average weight of a full container Average weight of a full pallet Average wide body bulk hold allocation for cargo Seating capacity of each aircraft Average load factor Average number of bags per passenger Average number of bags per container Bulk hold volume for each aircraft Bulk hold reduction factor  f n n w w w p  c  p  Data Sources Tower Log 2000 Various sources-see Appendix 4 Various sources-see Appendix 4  Data received from cargo handler-see Appendix 3 for analysis Data received from cargo handler-see Appendix 3 for analysis P Interviews with cargo handler b Various sources-see Appendix 4 L IACO (Average of all airlines servicing YVR) n b/p Airline analysis standards n b/c Interviews with ramp handler Various sources-see Appendix 3 Rbulk Interviews with ramp handler c  70  Graphical Summary of Flight Movements  YVR 2000 runway flight movements - Website vs. Tower Log 35,000  Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov Dec  m Y V R website data • Tower Log data  Data Source Website data collected from YVR website Tower log data received from Mark Cheng (YVR airport authority)  Explanation • • •  Monthly totals of runway movements collected from YVR website Monthly totals of runway movements tallied from tower log data Runway movements include all aircraft operations that require the use of a runway (helipad and float planes excluded)  Key Observations •  Monthly flight data is nearly identical across both sources  % Diff  Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec  TOTAL  Runway  0.1%  0.1%  0.5%  0.2%  0.1%  0.2%  0.3%  0.4%  0.1%  0.1%  -3.4%  0.0%  -0.1%  71  Count o f Cargo Carrying Flight Movements by Sector and Aircraft Class 100,000  80,000  o  60,000  1  40,000  20,000  International • Wide  FLIGHTS Wide  Transborder • Narrow  •Freighter  International Transborder  Domestic •  Integrators  Domestic  Total  13,845  3,072  12,893  29,810  Narrow  458  33,381  69,215  103,054  Freighter  281  7  2  290  -  Integrators Total  Flights % of Total  1,150  14,584  37,610  2,188  3,338  84,298  136,492  International  Transborder  Domestic  Total  Wide  10.1%  2.3%  9.4%  21.8%  Narrow  0.3%  24.5%  50.7%  75.5%  Freighter  0.2%  0.0%  0.0%  0.2%  Integrators  0.0%  0.8%  1.6%  2.4%  Total  10.7%  27.6%  61.8%  100.0%  Data Source •  Tower log data received from Mark Cheng (YVR airport authority)  Key Observations • •  Over 75% of cargo carrying aircraft are narrow body aircraft, which require all cargo to be bulk loaded reducing the usefulness of the cargo capacity There are almost an equal number of wide body flights to domestic and international cities. Over 75% of the domestic wide body traffic is operated by Air Canada, and a majority of their services are flow to and from Toronto. It is unclear from the schedule whether or not these flights have other legs to international destinations.  72  Analysis of Weights of Full Pallets and Containers Summary Section for Pallet Weights Count  Mean  Standard Deviation  Standard Error  Minimum  Maximum  Range  37  1797.108  740.0676  121.6664  1102  4292  3190  Mean Section for Pallet Weights Parameter  Mean  Median  Value Std Error 95% LCL 95% UCL Count  1797.108 121.6664 1550.357 2043.859 37  1526 1421 1915  Histogram of Containers  Histogram of Pallets  12.0-,  25.ru  Pallets  Containers  Summary Section for Container Weights Count  Standard Mean  Standard Deviation  Error  Minimum  Maximum  Range  30  913.1334  285.879  52.19413  368  1625  1257  Mean Section for Container Weights Parameter  Mean  Median  Value S t d Error 95% LCL 95% UCL Count  913.1334 52.19413 806.3843 1019.882 30  910.5 759 978  Note: The distribution of pallet weights includes very large values due to pallets in the summer months which are packed with fruit. These are not outliers which should be removed from analysis.  73  Summary of Aircraft Data and Data Sources Summarised here is the data required for each aircraft type in the flight network cargo carrying capacity analysis. For all aircraft the number of seats, the number of containers, the number of pallets, the hold volume and the number of flight movements are noted. Flight movement data was gathered from the Tower Log schedule for all aircraft types, and the data source for the other data is noted below. For many wide body aircraft only the maximum number of containers and the maximum number of pallets was known. Since aircraft always carry both containers and pallets, a mixed configuration was chosen. The mix was chosen to be half the maximum number of pallets, rounded up, and the resulting number of containers. Narrow-body aircraft cannot carry pallets or containers so their cargo carrying capacity is limited to bulk cargo hold volume. 146: BAe 146 all pax models • Seats - 76 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume-18m • M o vements - 5 516 Explanation and data source: Hold volume and seat data was found from the OAG flight schedule database. 3  310: Airbus A310 all pax models • Seats - 220 • Containers - 16 • Pallets - 2 • Hold Volume-17.3m • Movements - 329 Explanation and data sources: Seats and hold volume data is from the Airbus website (http://www.airbus.com). ULD data is from the Lufthansa cargo website (http://www.lunh ansacargo.com/). 3  313: Airbus A310-300 pax • Seats - 220 • Containers - 16 • Pallets - 2 • Hold Volume-17.3m • Movements - 132 Explanation and data sources: Seats and hold volume data is from the Airbus website (http://www.airbus.com). ULD data is from the Lufthansa cargo website (ht^://www.lufthansacargo.com/). 3  319: Airbus A319 • Seats-124 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 27.64m • Movements - 7992  3  74  Explanation and data sources: Seat and hold volume data is from the Airbus website (http://www.airbus.c om).  320: Airbus A320-100/200 • Seats-150 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 37.42m • Movements - 14393  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and hold volume data is from the Airbus website (http://www.airbus.com). 330: Airbus A330 all models • Seats-314 • Containers - 14 • Pallets - 4 • Hold Volume-19.7m • Movements - 427  3  Explanation and data sources: Data is an average of data collected for A330-200 and A330-300. 332: Airbus A330-200 • Seats - 293 • Containers — 14 • Pallets - 4 • Hold Volume-19.7m • Movements - 2230  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat, hold volume and ULD data was all collected from the Airbus website (http: // www .airbus .com). 333: Airbus A330-300 • Seats-335 • Containers - 18 • Pallets - 5 • Hold Volume-19.7m • Movements-21  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat, hold volume and ULD data was all collected from the Airbus website (http://www.airbus.com). Additional ULD data was collected from the US Airways cargo website (http://www.usair.com). 340: Airbus A340 all models • Seats - 267 • Containers - 15 • Pallets - 4.5 • Hold Volume-19.7m • Movements - 4290  3  Explanation and data sources: Data is an average of data collected from 342: Airbus A340-200 • Seats - 239 • Containers - 14 • Pallets - 4 • Hold Volume-19.7m • Movements - 124  A340-200 and A340-300.  3  75  Explanation and data sources: Seat, hold volume, and ULD data was collected from the airbus website (http://www.airbus.com). Additional ULD data was collected from the Lufthansa cargo website (http://www.lufthansa-cargo.com/). 343: Airbus A340-300 • Seats - 295 • Containers -18 • Pallets - 5 • Hold Volume-19.7m • Movements - 114  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat, hold volume, and ULD data was collected from the airbus website (http://www.airbus.com). Additional ULD data was collected from the Lufthansa cargo website (http://www.lufthansa-cargo.com/). 727: Boeing 727 all pax models • Seats-189 • Containers - 0 • Pallets-0 • Hold Volume-41m • Movements - 1401 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data was collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Hold volume data was collected from the Continental airlines cargo manual. 72F: Boeing 727 Freighter (-100/200) • Seats - 0 • Containers - 0 • Pallets — 11 (main deck) • Hold Volume-41m • Movements - 62 3  Explanation and data sources: Pallet data was collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Hold volume data was collected from the Continental airlines cargo manual. 732: Boeing 737-200 pax • Seats-130 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 24.6m • Movements - 17  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data was collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Hold volume data was collected from the US airways cargo website (http://www.usair.com) and the Continental airlines cargo manual. 733: Boeing 737-300 pax • Seats - 149 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 30m • Movements - 589  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data was collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Hold volume data was collected from the United airlines cargo website (http://www.unitedcargo.com).  76  734: Boeing 737-400 pax • Seats-168 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume-35.7m • Movements - 2713  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data was collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Hold volume data was collected from the US airways cargo website (http://www.usair.com). 735: Boeing 737-500 pax • Seats - 132 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 23m • Movements - 67  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and hold volume data was collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). 737: Boeing 737 all pax models • Seats - 50 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 34.5m • Movements - 39844 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and hold volume data is an average of data collected from each Boeing 737 version. 738: Boeing 737-800 pax • Seats-189 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 44m • Movements - 56  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and hold volume data was collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). 73G: Boeing 737-700 pax • Seats - 149 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume-27.3m • Movements - 33  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and hold volume data was collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). 742: Boeing 747-200 pax • Seats - 452 • Containers - 14 • Pallets - 6 • Hold Volume - 28.3m • Movements - 1028  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and ULD data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Additional ULD data collected from the Lufthansa cargo website  77  (ht1p://www.lufthansa-cargoxorn/). Hold volume data was collected from the Continental airlines cargo manual. 744: Boeing 747-400 pax • Seats - 524 • Containers - 14 • Pallets - 6 • Hold Volume - 28.3m • Movements - 5763  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and ULD data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Additional ULD data collected from the Lufthansa cargo website (http://www.lufthansa-cargo.com/) and K L M airlines aircraft handling manual. Hold volume data was collected from the Continental airlines cargo manual. 747: Boeing 747 all pax models • Seats - 488 • Containers - 14 • Pallets - 6 • Hold Volume - 28.3m • Movements - 1471 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and hold volume data is an average of data collectedfromBoeing 747200 and 747-400. 74E: Boeing 747-400 Combi • Seats - 266 • Containers — 18 • Pallets - 11 • Hold Volume - 28.3m • Movements - 251  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and ULD data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Additional ULD data collected from the Lufthansa cargo website (http://www.lufthansa-cargo.com/) and K L M airlines aircraft handling manual. Hold volume data was collected from the Continental airlines cargo manual. 74F: Boeing 747 all Freighter models • Seats - 0 • Containers - 20 • Pallets - 34 • Hold Volume-14.7m • Movements - 278 3  Explanation and data sources: ULD and hold volume data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). 757: Boeing 757 all pax models • Seats - 239 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 50.6m • Movements - 4154 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Hold volume data collected from the Continental airlines cargo manual.  78  763: Boeing 767-300 pax • Seats-351 • Containers - 14 • Pallets - 4 • Hold Volume-12.2m • Movements - 7680  3  Explanation and data sources: ULD and seat data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Additional ULD data collected from the K L M airlines aircraft handling manual. Hold volume data collected from the Jane's Paris air-show website (http ://paris. j anes. c om/aircraftdata. shtml). 767: Boeing 767 all pax models • Seats - 327 • Containers - 14 • Pallets-4 • Hold Volume-12.2m • Movements - 5412 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data is average of Boeing 767-200 and 767-300. ULD and hold volume data is the same as for the Boeing 767-300 777: Boeing 777 all pax models • Seats - 440 • Containers - 14 • Pallets - 6 • Hold Volume-17m • Movements - 22 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat, ULD and hold volume data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). D10: Douglas DC-10 pax • Seats - 380 • Containers - 20 • Pallets - 2 • Hold Volume-14.4m • Movements - 288  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeinR.com). ULD and bulk hold volume data collected from the Continental airlines cargo manual. DC9: Douglas DC-9 pax • Seats - 90 • Containers - 0 • Pallets-0 • Hold Volume-13m • Movements - 1715  3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). Hold volume data collected from the SAS cargo website (http://www.sascargo.com/). F28: Fokker F.28 Fellowship • Seats - 85 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume-13m • Movements - 19253 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat and hold volume data collected from the OAG flight schedule database  79  L10: Lockheed L-1011 Tristar pax • Seats - 302 • Containers - 20 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume-19m • Movements - 366 3  Explanation and data sources: Data from U.S. civil reserve air fleet aircraft handbook (hi^://ww.adtdl.anny.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dliVfm/55-9/5593ch.pdf) L15: Lockheed L-1011 -500 Tristar pax • Seats - 270 • Containers - 20 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume-19m • Movements - 219 3  Explanation and data sources: Data from U.S. civil reserve air fleet aircraft handbook (http://ww.adtdl.anny.rml/cRi-bin/atdl.diyfnV55-9/5593ch.pdf) M i l : McDonnell Douglas MD11 pax • Seats-410 • Containers - 14 • Pallets - 6 • Hold Volume-14.4m • Movements - 484 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). ULD data collected from K L M airlines aircraft handling manual. Hold volume data was chosen to be the same as that of a DC-10 (very similar aircraft) M80: McDonnell Douglas MD80 • Seats-172 • Containers - 0 • Pallets - 0 • Hold Volume - 35.2m • Movements - 2548 3  Explanation and data sources: Seat data collected from the Boeing website (http://www.boeing.com). ULD and hold volume data collected from the Continental airlines cargo manual  80  Appendix 4: Supporting Material for Transhipment Cargo Facility Analysis  1. Transhipment Cargo Survey 2. Transhipment Cargo Connection Plots  81  Transhipment Cargo Facility Survey W e define transhipment cargo as freight that is flown into Y V R , unloaded f r o m the arriving aircraft, processed and/or stored for s o m e duration, and then loaded onto another aircraft for departure t o w a r d its final destination.  Company Name: Company Representative: 1. W h a t proportion of the total c a r g o throughput handled by your c o m p a n y is transhipment cargo, as defined a b o v e ? _% 2. Do y o u believe that the costs associated with the following areas of transhipment cargo are significant (please circle your choices): a. D a m a g e / Spoilage b. Airside to landside transportation c. Handling d. Other (Please Specify)  a) W o u l d a c o m m o n use t r a n s h i p m e n t cargo facility located on airside (as s h o w n on the map attached) be beneficial to alleviating the issues outlined in question 2 ? a. b.  Yes No  b) If y e s , rank the following potential services offered by a c o m m o n use transhipment cargo facility (located on airside), f r o m most valuable to least valuable (1 indicating most valuable a n d 6 indicating least valuable): a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  Shelter f r o m the e l e m e n t s Refrigeration Security A r e a for repacking On-site c u s t o m s FTZ Other (Please Specify B e l o w )  82  4 . If d a m a g e / spoilage is an issue for your c o m p a n y , circle the major causes: a. Rain d a m a g e b. Heat for perishables c. Mishandling d. Theft e. O t h e r (Please Specify)  5. a) W h a t proportion of your transhipment cargo is transported f r o m the terminal to an airside access w a r e h o u s e for processing or storage? % b) H o w long d o e s it t a k e , on average, to transport cargo f r o m the terminal to the airside access w a r e h o u s e ? a. International T e r m i n a l b. Domestic T e r m i n a l c. T r a n s - b o r d e r Terminal  min min min  c) W h a t are the main activities that cargo, w h i c h is transported to an airside a c c e s s w a r e h o u s e , u n d e r g o e s ? (Please add rough proportions) (ex. 4 0 % refrigeration, 3 5 % storage for shelter, 2 5 % repackaging, etc.) 1.  3.  2.  4.  6. W h a t proportion of y o u r t r a n s h i p m e n t cargo departs Y V R within: a. b. c. d. e.  0-1 1-2 2-4 4-8 Over  hours hours hours hours 8 hours  7. W h a t proportion of transhipment cargo arrives at: a. b. c. d. e. f. g.  0600-0800 0 8 0 0 - 1000 1000-1200 1200-1400 1400-1600 1 6 0 0 - 1800 1800-0600  83  8.  9.  W h a t proportion of transhipment cargo departs at: a.  0600-0800  b.  0800-1000  c.  1000-  d.  1200-1400  1200  e.  1400-1600  f.  1600-  g.  1800-0600  1800  W h a t facilities or s e r v i c e s would help you in the cargo transhipment a r e a ?  P l e a s e a d d any c o m m e n t s or suggestions that you m a y have below.  Thank you for taking the time to respond to this survey.  Completed surveys can be faxed to Rob Ellaway at the Vancouver International Airport Authority on 604-232-6051 or returned by mail in the enclosed envelope  84  Transhipment Cargo Connection Plots Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - July 9lh, 2001 Sample Data-Approx 45% of Transhipment Cargo  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - July 10th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx. 45% of Transhipment Cargo  25  25 Total pieces of norvflaMhroucfi transhipment cargo = 20  20  20  15 -  Total pieces of norvflcrwtiirough transhipment cargo = 27  M  Rcw through = 11  15  e 10 -  *-  ,  RcwtiTough = 3  '—f  10  4 ' ^ O C  O O J O C O)  O O O O C  Oi  o  O O O O C  O O O O C  O O O O C  O O O O C  O  O  O C  O  O  O  O C  O  O  O  O C  O  O  O  O O C O O  O  o  ^  °>-  Cj-  ,<y  N  N- , V  A'  &•  A -  A -  CS  4  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - July 12th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx 45% of Transhipment Cargo 25  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - July 13th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx 45% of Transhipment Cargo 25  Total pieces of rxx>-flcwthrough trans hi prrent cargo = 32  20  Total pieces of non-flcw<hnxjc/i transhipment cargo = 26  20  Rcw through = 15  15  Row through = 0  15  m  10  10  5  fe c? q ? ^ c? !§> ^$>K? < ^ oj?  •ID.  c£T? & n .c? .•§>, » ^ » n;?  N  .c?^  m  »<£> ^ S> ^ # ».<£>  fe  A  <V <V <y A- A - »N- <V <V A - /!>• .fc: .fc-  %  N  A-  A-  A-  A-  A- A -  a  4  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR-July 15th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx 45% of Transhipment Cargo  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - Jury 16th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx 45% of Transhipment Cargo  25  25 Total pieces of rexvAowthrough transhipment cargo=37  20  «  Rowthrough =0  15  Total pieces of non-flcwttirough transhipment cargo = 25  20  Flow through = 0  |15  "S a p10  I S 10  a  O  5  5  i  C #  0  1  <?° <>>• °r  t #  mm  ^  ^ N  \- J,- ,0,-  ^  J> J'  0)00 A^  A *  c  :  0  oi oi  r  n.n.n.  *  M  CM CO CO  o  o  v fc- A - A - A - A - A- A- A-  N  o  CO  N  85  o  O  in m co co  CO  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - July 17th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx. 45% of Transhipment Cargo  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - July 18th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx. 45% of Transhipment Cargo 25  25  I?  tf  20  Total pieces of ncn-flcwthrough transhipment cargo = 21  15  Rcwthrough = 20  Total pieces of non-flcmthrough transhipment cargo = 25'  20 n  FTowthrough = 14  n 15 o u 0 a. P 10 o  10  u  5  tt  0 rf  4  q,-  Cy  ^ -  ,£>• N N  ^  ^ - ^  A - A -  <4-  ^ .  o>- S>- Sy  <V- <V A' A' ,>• ,>• A- A- A-  A-  Transhipment Cargo Inventory at YVR - July 18th, 2001 Sample Data-Approx 45% of Transhipment Cargo 25 -  F  20  Total pieces of non-fiowlhrough transhiprrent cargo = 25  15  Rcwthrough = 14  10  '-AS #  J$ cj- Oj-  <$> *P # K  K  s- \-  N  N  ,ty  •  „& J> J> J§> J§> J> J> J> J> A- fc- uA- A- A s  N  86  A- A- A  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0090547/manifest

Comment

Related Items