Bilateral agreements on air cargo are international trade contracts between two states that regulate commercial provisions of air services
They are regarded as treaties, inter-governmental or executive conventions, or exchanges of diplomatic notes
According to Article 6 of the Chicago Convention of 1944, there is no transnational service required to operate in any contracting state (Abeyratne, 2018)
Transnational service is established only under specific permission/agreement with the contracting state
The transnational air services grant the rights for landing or flight without landing across a state’s territory
United States/European Union (US/EU) and the Multilateral Agreement on Liberalization of International Air Transportation (MALIAT) are two main multilateral agreements
EU uses Regulation 1008/2008 (Air Transport Regulations) as the primary document directing air cargo transportation within the Union
MALIAT was signed in 2001 between partnering states of Chile, Fiji, Brunei, New Zealand, Tonga, Samoa, the US, and Singapore (Fu & Yang, 2017)
Five Freedoms and other Agreements
First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Freedoms make international air commerce possible
They include the allowance to land with passengers or cargo taken on board in the state native to the airline
They represent the right to perform transportation from and to the state native to the air company
The rights are granted depending on bilateral agreements between states
The Open Skies agreement is a bilateral contract between two nations that allows unlimited air travel between them
The Open Skies agreements prohibit governmental interventions in the commercial decisions made by the air cargo management (Contreras, 2017)
The US is pursuing Open Skies policy since 1992
The US finalized Open Skies agreements with 126 partners by 2019 (Contreras, 2017)
Chicago Convention regulates safety constraints
It requires the customs warehouses or free zones to issue comprehensive rules on safety
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) also controls the safety issues
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency imposes regulations concerning international and domestic air cargo security
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is another federal agency mandated with air transport security
Article 37 of the Convention of International Civil Aviation (CICA) requires countries to apply the procedures to freights moving by air, sea, and land
References
Abeyratne, R. (2018). Competition in air transport and equality of opportunity. Estey Journal of International Law and Trade Policy, 19, 85-106.
Contreras, J. M. T. (2017). An analysis of the open skies policy and its effects on the tourism industry in Mexico. Journal of Spatial and Organizational Dynamics, 5(4), 376-399.
Fu, X., & Yang, H. (2017). Airport–airline arrangements: An interpretive review of industry practices and recent studies. The Economics of Airport Operations, 6, 1-19.
Air cargo operations are an essential centerpiece of the modern delivery and transportation systems. The general impact of the processes can vary depending on the perspectives based on mail services, air freight, and air-express. Although these elements possess a wide range of similarities, one should be aware of key distinctive differences. It is important to note that the given factors can be manifested in the traffic flow, schedule sensitivity, and financial leverage of load factors.
Air cargo operations themselves are comprised of fixed and core procedural components. It is stated that they might include consignee, airline, road transport, a forwarder, and a shipper (Feng et al., 2015). A forwarder is a critical consolidator and linker of an airline and shipper, whereas the road transported is responsible for ground relocation of the items, and the consignee is a receiver (Feng et al., 2015). In the case of air-express, the most evident factor is schedule sensitivity, which means that time constraints are tighter and stricter compared to other formats. A similar state can be observed in mail delivery services but to a lesser extent. Air cargo operations from the mail services perspective are more burdened by traffic flow management because the sheer number of destinations is greater. One should be aware that the uncertainty of overload and error is higher, which is why the setup needs to be more optimized.
Moreover, the financial leverage of load factors is the central issue in air freight. It is stated that the minimization of the total cost is directly dependent on aircraft volume capacity and cargo features (Feng et al., 2015). The varying elements within air freight services make it challenging to preserve proper financial leverage due to the lack of consistency in estimated cargo size, weight, and fragility. Therefore, although scheduling is mostly a common problem among all three forms of air cargo operations, there are additional issues for each type.
The procedural manifestations of air cargo operations can be demonstrated through fleet planning processes. For instance, Aviationcargo of DHL is an example of an air carrier that considers factors, such as airplane performance, cargo demand, airline goals, and operating economies (“General conditions of carriage,” n.d.). For example, Steelcase is a furniture manufacturer that offers quick shipping options, which can arrive as soon as two days (“Quick ship guide,” 2020). It relies on air freight services to deliver the products, but one can observe that the overall dimensions of the item can vary greatly. In addition, there are weight and fragility-related factors, which put more pressure on the deliverer, such as DHL.
In conclusion, air cargo operations can be examined from perspectives of air-express, air freight, and air mail delivery services. Although all of them experience schedule-based challenges, the issue is the greatest among the former. However, air freight is impacted by financial leverage factors of loading due to inconsistent features of cargo, such as volume, weight, and fragility. In the case of air mail services, there are difficulties in traffic flow management, which is due to a large number of destinations of an individual mail. The fleet planning process is also complicated by a wide range of influences that include operating economies, airline objectives, cargo-related demand, and airplane performance. A furniture manufacturer, such as Steelcase, is an illustration of air freight and air-express, where quick shipping options need to be delivered quickly regardless of the size of a product.
References
Feng, B., Li, Y., & Shen, Z. J. M. (2015). Air cargo operations: Literature review and comparison with practices. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 56, 263-280. Web.
Air cargo industry is a world-spanning web of supply routes, which allow for fast deliveries of key products in almost any city and country. It is implemented for delivering mail, personal articles, and possessions, as well as various products and merchandise that could be sold on the market. Air cargo industry has the reputation of the fastest and safest delivery system. However, as of 2010, this reputation has been put into question by a failed bombing attack in Saudi Arabia, where two bombs were smuggled on board disguised as printer cartridges. Numerous governments responded to this new threat by raising security demands for air cargo. In “Closing the Gaps in Air Cargo Security,” Sarah Moore (2015) argues that the solution to the problem is the adoption of unified security standards for Air Cargo Security.
The 2010 Printer Bomb Plot
The article explains that the issue in regards to restrictive air cargo security demands has appeared after a failed cargo bombing plot of 2010. Two bombs, brought aboard as printer cartridges, were filled with PETN explosives, which are hard to detect by x-ray, as the compound resembles the ink found in regular cartridges. Sniffer dogs also missed the bombs, as PETN has low vapor pressure (Gopalakrishnan & Dichtel, 2013). One of the bombs were brought into the cargo holds of a passenger plane, and would have detonated mid-air, causing more than 200 deaths, had the plot not been foiled by the intelligence provided by a Saudi double-agent. The second bomb was found in one of UPS’s cargo jets.
Economic “Jihad”
Moore (2015) bases her argument around the doctrine proposed and described in the jihadist journal “Inspire,” which describes the strategy of Economic Jihad, using cargo bombings as means of doing so. She states that by doing nothing, airline operators increase the possibilities of bombings, whereas by adopting restrictive security policies, they would also be playing into the terrorists’ hand. The alternative solution, according to Moore (2015), lies in the united standards of security for all air cargo around the world.
What does Increasing Security Measures Bring?
Some countries have adopted restrictive and thorough security protocols for all cargo flights. According to Moore (2015), the US airlines were forced to comply with the “100% screening policy” for passenger and cargo flights. This has come with significant costs, but the US market was capable of bearing that costs. Such measures would not be effective in all countries, as in some less economically stable regions the introduction of 100% screenings for cargo flights would significantly increase prices, which would cause a loss of customers and profit (Georgescu, 2012).
Moore (2015) uses the example of the 2010 Cargo Bombing plot to highlight the inefficiencies of the current scanning and bomb-detection methods. Her argument is based on the fact that terrorists are becoming increasingly efficient in making bombs that camouflage themselves as regular electronic devices, such as computers and printers, and are packaging them in a way to make vapors less detectable. In doing so, they minimize the possibility of detection.
Possible Solution: Introduction of the Global Protocol for Air Cargo
Moore (2015) investigates the potential for the introduction of the GPAC (Global Protocol for Air Cargo) for the EU, USA, Australia, and New Zealand, due to relative similarities of cargo screening standards in the countries. The idea of recognizing security measures performed in other countries would allow forgoing repetitive cargo screenings in-transition, which would increase the cost-efficiency of the cargo flights and decrease waiting times (Gillen & Morisson, 2015). At the same time, Moore (2015) states that the extra time could be spent on conducting a more thorough initial cargo screen.
Weaknesses of GPAC
Moore (2015) recognizes some of the weaknesses of the proposed GPAC model. One of the biggest weaknesses would be the possibility of terrorists placing bombs in transition flights, where additional security screenings would not be conducted. In addition, the author highlights the fact that modern X-ray screening tools are expensive, with some models costing over 1 million dollars (Moore, 2015). Lastly, he states that some countries use bomb detection technology, others rely on sniffing dogs to scan the cargo for bomb threats, and forcing everyone to comply with the same standards would be very hard if not impossible, as both measures are acknowledged to be effective (King, 2013).
Article Conclusions
The author concludes her article on a supporting note towards GPAC, once more listing the inefficiencies of the 100% screening system, and stating that “History demonstrates that systemic change in the face of a major shock also results in overreaction, like Representative Markey’s attempt to introduce an all-air cargo screening bill in the wake of the AQAP printer cartridge plot” (Moore, 2015, p. 134). The author claims that developing a new screening and response system in the absence of a crisis will lead to a sturdier and more economically-efficient security model.
Discussion: Arguments against GPAC
While Moore provided credible and solid arguments in favor of introducing GPAC, she did not take certain points and factors into account. Her paper was written in 2015, whereas the infamous Cargo Bombing Plot occurred in 2010. Despite the sporadic and reactionary measures taken by the government, not a single air cargo bombing occurred between 2010 and 2017. Had it been as effective as stated by the article, the terrorists would have, no doubt, attempted it more than once. As it stands, current Cargo Air security protocols guarantee a very high rate of failure for any attempted cargo bombings, due to more thorough screening procedures and the use of advanced screening technology to locate the bombs (Tarim, Ozmutlu, Gurler, & Yalcin, 2015).
Personal Conclusions
The two bombs smuggled inside the cargo hold of a passenger flight and a UPS cargo flight were intercepted during in-transition screenings in Dubai and London, UK. The removal of extra screenings and the introduction of selective screenings instead of full cargo screenings would benefit companies and air transportation providers a great deal, as it would allow them to cut costs on transportation significantly while making the governments around the world pay extra for additional security measures to adhere to GPAC. With cargo bombings being as infrequent as they are, it can be concluded that the measures currently in place are reasonable enough to intercept future cargo bombings, despite the additional costs and time delays they impose on businesses. Trying to cut costs on the security of the passengers is something that could not be allowed.
References
Georgescu, C. (2012). Air cargo security. International Journal of Academic Research in Accounting, Finance and Management Sciences, 2(1), 340-346.
Gillen, D., & Morrison, W. G. (2015). Aviation security: Costing, pricing, finance and performance. Journal of Air Transport Management, 48, 1-12.
Gopalakrishnan, D., & Dichtel, W. R. (2013). Direct Detection of RDX Vapor Using a Conjugated Polymer Network. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 135-22, 8357-8362.
King, A. (2013). The new canine detectives. New Scientist, 219(2931), 40-43.
Moore, S. (2015). Closing the gaps in air cargo security. Journal of Transportation Security, 8(3), 115-137.
Sodhi, M. S., & Tang, C. S. (2012). Strategic approaches for mitigating supply chain risks. Operations Research & Management Science, 172, 95-106.
Tarim, U. A., Ozmutlu, E. N., Gurler, O., & Yalcin, S. (2015). A possibility for standoff bomb detection. Radiation Physics and Chemistry, (106), 170-174.
The majority of nations have considerable resources as compared to other countries. As a result, the scheme of sell to other countries and importation has been instituted to shift form one region to another. There are quite a lot of means to swap over of involvements, for instance, carriage by ocean or sky, methods which are presided over by global principles. These patterns have been built up with time, as the world keeps advancing. The patterns that govern carriage by sea have grown from the Hague-Visby Rules and the Rotterdam Rules. Patterns that govern carriage by air have majorly originated from the Warsaw Convention to the Montreal Convention.
The Hague-Visby Rules do not hold in the least such description, but just link the conception of pact of carriage to the deed written out there-under, the invoice of shipment. As a result, it has been assumed that they have taken on an infotainment overture. In the Rotterdam Rules there is as an alternative a description of the agreement of carriage, which expresses the responsibility of the transporter, which is simply the carriage of commodities by sea from one point to the next. On September 23, 2009, sixteen nations formally articulated their prop up for the new United Nation Convention ‘Rotterdam Rules’ through the formal Signing Ceremony in Rotterdam, the Netherlands. The Rotterdam regulations were the result of governmental discussions that lasted in the period from 2002 to 2009. The deliberations were held in the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law.
Nevertheless, the Montreal Convention varies from the Warsaw Convention in several respects. For instance, under the Warsaw scheme, the French text controlled over that of the English text. However, under the Montreal Convention, in keeping with its goal of cutting back on international aviation law, the English text of the Montreal Convention is by the same token authoritative to the French text.
This paper will argue the Matters regulated by the Hague-Visby Rules and the Rotterdam Rules, Matters synchronized only by the Rotterdam Rule, and matters regulated by Warsaw-Hague and Montreal air cargo.
Matters regulated by the Hague-Visby and Rotterdam Rules
Exclusion
The Hague-Visby Rules, consistent to piece 1(b), is relevant only to agreements of carriage “covered” by an invoice of loading or comparable deed of title and thus they impliedly leave out charter parties. This stipulation gives rise to some ambiguity, for article 3(3) grants that the transporter has to write out an invoice of loading on claim of the hauler and article 6 endows the transporter liberty of contract when no bill of loading is given out. Consequently, the regulations hold as well prior to an invoice of loading being given out. But then, in the Rotterdam Rules the fundamental set about is contractual. However, that overture is complemented by an arrangement of a form of trade and a documentary approach. Item 6 lays out instances where in liner delivery the regulations are not relevant. Such cases are classified by reference to credentials and then instances where in non-liner haulage where the policies are pertinent. Thus, such requirements engross that as a universal statute the policies are applicable to liner transportation, a case in which the agreement is contained in or substantiated by a transfer deed. It is worth noting that this is not relevant in non-liner haulage a case in which usually the pact is confirmed by a charter party.
The most noteworthy aspect of the requirements on the scope of application is the guard approved to third parties. In the Hague-Visby such shield is granted only if an invoice of loading is given out and is endorsed by a third party. On the other hand, in the Rotterdam regulations, in all circumstances excluded from their extent of relevance the policies even so are pertinent in respect of stakeholders other than the initial contracting entity. This is regardless of a flexible transfer deed or a flexible electronic transfer record being given out or not, also no matter any certificate being given out or not.
Period of application and period of responsibility of the carrier
On the foundation of the description of carriage of commodities in piece 1(e) of the Hague-Visby Rules, it is now established that the phase of their relevance is, for dry shipment, from the commencement of loading of the commodities on the ship to the end of their discharge from the ship. Thus, given that very often in liner business the transporter takes responsibility of the commodities prior to their loading on board and takes them to the receiver in a stockroom of the harbor of discharge, there are times when the commodities are in the guardianship of the transporter to which the Hague-Visby Rules do not apply. That generates ambiguity, since the regulations pertinent may differ from port to port. Nonetheless, following the Rotterdam Rules the time of relevance and the time of accountability of the hauler correspond with that during which the transporter is in charge of the commodities, anywhere he receives and delivers them, apart from where the commodities have got to be handed over to an authority in the place of receipt or in the place of delivery. This is an exemption that would be appropriate, it is considered, just in port-to-port agreements.
Obligations of the carrier
The novel temperament of The Hague Rules as ordinary bills of loading sections may well give details why the fundamental requirement of the transporter, as follows to deliver the goods to the consignee, is not mentioned. Requirements are made in the Hague-Visby Rules on the subject of the responsibilities of the transporter to make the ship seaworthy and to care for the consignment, even as no mention to them is made in the Hamburg Rules, as it has been considered adequate to grant in article 5(1) that the transporter is accountable except he verifies that he and his servants or instruments took all actions that could practically be necessary to steer clear of the incident and its costs. The conventional requirements of the hauler to apply due meticulousness to ensure the vessel is seafaring and to care for the commodities have been maintained in the Rotterdam regulations but the initial of such requirements has been made incessant. There is as a matter of fact no cause why, once the vessel has cruised from a harbor, the proprietor ought to be allayed from any responsibility to make certain its seaworthiness. On matters touching on transfer credentials, The Hague-Visby regulations require the transporter to give out a debit of shipment. Nevertheless, in the Rotterdam regulations a range of options are set out in item 35: the transporter is required to give out, at the transporter’s preference, a flexible or a fixed transportation deed except it is the practice, usage or practice of the deal not to use one. The lone query that may come up is if the transporter, obliged to give out a flexible transfer certificate, may give out a flexible deed that explicitly affirms that the commodities may be transported devoid of the submission of the transfer certificate: a form of deed reference to which is made in item 47(2). It is considered that this is not the event, for such a specific of transferable transfer deed comprises an exemption to the commonplace temperament of such deed as a submission certificate and, consequently, the hauler may not give out the manuscript pointed out in item 47(2) save for when needed by, or with the approval of, the transporter.
Accountability of the transporter and allotment of the burden of proof
The primary dissimilarity between the two Conventions lies in the reality that the Hague-Visby regulations do not envelop responsibility for holdup whereas the Rotterdam regulations do. As relates to the foundation of the accountability of the hauler, even though the starting point is fault under all regulations, there are momentous disparities linking them in regards to the exemptions to the universal decree that fault involves responsibility and of the allotment of the burden of proof. In the Hague-Visby regulations the transporter is absolved from answerability 1) in respect of deprivation of or smash up to the commodities coming up from non-seaworthiness except when rooted by the violation by the transporter of his due diligence requirement and, 2) also for deprivation of or smash up to the commodities cropping up from slipup of the captain, seafarer, pilot, or the handmaids of the hauler in the steering or in the running of the vessel and for deprivation of or smash up to the commodities as a result of blaze due fault of the team. In the Rotterdam regulations in its place the transporter is for all time answerable for deprivation, smash up or holdup due to mistake of the hauler, his handmaids or instruments.
To the extent of allotment of the burden of proof, it is not troubled the Hague-Visby parameter that makes any orientation to the preliminary encumber a verification lying on the plaintiff. The Rotterdam regulations as an alternative do and offer in item 17(1) that the transporter is legally responsible if the plaintiff confirms that the deprivation, smash up or holdup occurred at some stage in transporter’s liability.
The duty of proving a dispute then budges on the transporter and the Hague-Visby regulations and the Rotterdam regulations offer two options, the primary being the evidence that the deprivation, smash up or holdup is not linked to the mistake of the transporter or the blunder of any individual for whom he is answerable and the subsequent being only a presupposition of lack of mistake if the hauler demonstrates that the deprivation, smash up or holdup is as a result of an exempt risk.
The ensuing responsibility squarely on the plaintiff is then synchronized in a more thorough way in the Rotterdam regulations, consistent to which the plaintiff may verify either that the exempt risk was as a result of the transporter’s blunder or of an individual for whom he is accountable or that an occurrence other than an exempt danger put in to the deprivation, smash up or holdup. The Rotterdam regulations subsequently offer for an additional option in help to the plaintiff, comprising of the confirmation that the deprivation, smash up or holdup was most likely caused or contributed to by non-seaworthiness of the vessel, in which occasion the hauler may provide evidence that he had practiced due assiduousness in ensuring the vessel is seaworthy”.
Liability of the carrier for other persons
“The groups of persons for whom the carrier is liable gradually increase from the Hague-Visby Rules to the Rotterdam Rules. In the Hague-Visby regulations, save for the exonerations talked about in item 4(1)(a) and (b), the hauler is answerable for the mistakes of his handmaids or instruments; a responsibility that comes up by insinuation from item 4(2)(q). The group of the instruments looks to be quite restricted, since item 4bis (2) offers that they do not take in autonomous contractors and since the scope of relevance of the Hague-Visby regulations is restricted to the time between beginning of loading on and completion of ejection from the vessel. For that reason, activities carried out aground in the docks of loading and release is not subject to the Hague-Visby regulations. Nevertheless, agents in all probability take in the master and crew of the vessel if they are not under the service of the hauler, as is the case where the hauler is the time hirer of the vessel.
Nonetheless, the groups of people for whom the hauler is accountable enlarge under the Rotterdam regulations. They in point of fact consist of, consistent to item 18, performing entities, both naval and non-naval, also the master and crew of the vessel and the workforce of the hauler and of any performing entity.
Liability of servants, agents and independent contractor
The Hague-Visby Rules do not control the accountability of the servants or agents but just offer, correspondingly in article 4bis (1), that if an exploit is brought against it, it is allowed to the ramparts and restrictions of accountability of the hauler. The Rotterdam Rules have provisions comparable to this of the Hague-Visby Rules in value of the handmaids and equipment of the hauler but with the acceptance of the idea of naval performing party they have broadened the group of people to whom they pertain and plainly offer that every such personnel is subject as well to the compulsions and accountabilities of the transporter. The feat against them is, consequently, obviously in agreement.
Notice of loss, damage or delay
In The Hague-Visby Rules the note has to be furnished prior to or at the instance of delivery and, if the loss or smash up is not clear, within three days of delivery. The regulations offer that failing such notice delivery is clear proof of delivery of the commodities as illustrated in the invoice of loading or transfer deed. But then, The Rotterdam regulations allow that the note has to be issued prior to or at the instance of deliverance and, if the deprivation or smash up is indecipherable, within a week of deliverance. They then even out the result of the letdown to offer such notice through allowing that the downer does not impinge on the right to claim compensation and the allocation of responsibility outlined in item 17. This phraseology is not appropriate as the real objective was to make it clear that the notice, and not the letdown to give it, does not impinge on the allotment of the accountability.
Obligations and liability of the shipper
The Hague-Visby Rules have three riders on the obligations and responsibility of the hauler dotted in various sections of the text. Foremost, in piece 3(5) they offer that the hauler is deemed to have assured to the shipper the exactness at the time of shipment of the marks, quantity, magnitude and weight furnished by him. Subsequently, in part 4(3) they provide that the hauler is not accountable for deprivation or smash up caused by the hauler or the vessel come up or ensuing from any reason devoid of its act, blunder or disregard, in that way meaning, with words comparable to those used in piece 4(2) for the hauler, that the carter is accountable for deprivation or smash up sustained by the carter as a result of the work, mistake or overlook of the hauler. Finally, item 4(6) offers that the transporter is answerable for all scathes and operating costs straightly and circuitously coming up from the delivery of hazardous commodities the delivery whereof the transporter has not approved with familiarity of their temperament. Stern responsibility in the first and final case; fault accountability in the second instance.
The Rotterdam regulations order in section 7 the responsibilities and the responsibility of the transporter in much larger particulars. They offer in item 27 that the transporter has to dole out the commodities in such circumstances that they will bear up the anticipated load, including management, loading, whipping and discharging. They then offer in item 29 that the transporter has to offer data, directions and credentials relating to the merchandise, not otherwise accessible to the transporter, essential for the appropriate management and movement of the commodities and for the hauler to conform to the rules pertinent to the anticipated load and in item 31 that the hauler has to offer data for the collection of the agreement deed. In conclusion, in item 32 they set out regulations for the haulage of hazardous commodities and in this respect they to some extent confine the accountability of the transporter as measure up to the Hamburg regulations, as they affirm that the transporter is accountable for deprivation or smash up as a result of the commodities consequent of his letdown to report to the hauler of the precarious temperament of the commodities if the transporter does not otherwise have information of such unsafe temperament.
Agreement deed
The Hague-Visby regulations offer in item 3(3) that following the receiving of the commodities into his responsibility the transporter must on insistence of the hauler give out an invoice of loading and in item 3(7) that following the commodities being loaded the hauler has to give out a shipped invoice of loading. They then lay out, still in item 3(3), the details of the commodities that have to be pointed out in the invoice of loading and offer that the hauler is not bound to utter specifics that he has rational ground for supposing not precisely to correspond to the commodities.
Then again, The Rotterdam regulations control transfer credentials in section 8. The giving out of a transfer deed is the usual condition, but it is not a stipulation for the relevance of the Rotterdam regulations, for the giving out of a transfer deed is not necessary if hauler and shipper see eye to eye or else or if it is a tradition, procedure or practice not to use one. With such omission, consistent with item 35 the transporter is allowed to get hold of an unfixed or a preset transfer deed, this succeeding option being originality as respect to the Hague-Visby regulations. The requirements of the Rotterdam regulations as a result radically fluctuate from this of the Hague-Visby regulations and come out to be categorically more patent and comprehensive.
Limitation of liability
“Under the Hague-Visby Rules, Art 5, r 5 provides that the carrier’s liability is limited to ‘100 pound per Package or unit’. Article 9 provides that the monetary units mentioned in these rules to be taken to be gold value”.
The extent of relevance of the confines of accountability has been broadened in the Rotterdam regulations. Even as in actuality under the Hague-Visby regulations it covers deprivation of or smash up to or in relation with the goods, in item 59 of the Rotterdam regulations it covers in the main contraventions of the transporter’s requirements under the regulations. Compulsions other than that involving the apt deliverance of the commodities in the unchanged number and circumstances on hand at the time of reception include 1) those in item 35 involving the issuing of a transfer deed with the details necessary by item 36, 2) those in item 40 to make the grade for the information involving the commodities if the transporter has definite information or has sensible basis to think that any material declaration in the transfer deed is bogus or deceptive, 3) those in items 45-47 linking the deliverance of the commodities and, 4) those in item 52 to carry out the directives of the controlling entity. In any occasion the compulsion that has been infringed has to relate to the commodities, because the restrictions consistent with item 59(1) are referred to the merchandise that is the topic of disagreement. The bound for fiscal deprivation as a result of holdup that is not talked about in the Hague-Visby regulations in which accountability for holdup is not synchronized is in the Rotterdam regulations two and one-half times the cargo payable in respect of the merchandise belated.
A further disparity exists between the terms of the Hague-Visby regulations and the stipulation in the Rotterdam regulations: while in the Hague-Visby regulations reference is made to operations or lapses of the transporter, in that way enabling contradictory views as to whether the operations or blunders of the handmaids or instruments of the hauler might be pertinent, in the Rotterdam regulations reference is made to the individual operation or exclusion of the individual asserting the liberty to bound.
Time for lawsuit
The conceptualization of the stipulation on the time for lawsuit in the Rotterdam regulations is contradictory to that in the Hague-Visby regulations in that it mulls over the time from the point of view of the plaintiff as opposed to that of the suspect. Its reach is broader, as it takes care of any deed that may come under the restrictions. For that reason in the Rotterdam regulations it is relevant to any exploit of the hauler or receiver against the hauler or any naval performing entity also to any feat of the hauler or any nautical performing entity against the transporter, documentary hauler managing entity or receiver.
The constraint time also fluctuates: one year for the Hague-Visby regulations and two years for the Rotterdam terms. The requirements on the origination and the annex of the restriction phase and on procedures for protection are virtually similar in all regulations but in its place a disparity may subsist in respect of the deferral or disruption of the phase since not anything is assumed in that respect in the Hague-Visby regulations, thus permitting the probable relevance of the national decree, even as deferral and disruption of the check phase is specifically barred in the Rotterdam regulations. A particular stipulation has been incorporated in the Rotterdam regulations in respect of the measures against the individual recognized as transporter consistent to piece 37(2). Consistent to item 65 in such instance the exploit may be introduced after the end of the two years restriction time within the later of the instance permissible by the lex fori and 90 days beginning from the day when the hauler has been recognized.
Matters regulated only by the Rotterdam Rules
The requirements that control the officially authorized command applicable to door-to-door agreements of haulage are items 26 and 82.
Article 26
The circumstances for the functioning of item 26 are three. The foremost of such circumstances touch on the instance when the incident has taken place: the deprivation of or smash up to the commodities or the occurrence or condition resulting in a holdup must have come about only prior to their loading on or after their release from a vessel. The subsequent is that the other global mechanism would have been practical if the hauler had made a split and express agreement with the hauler in respect of the specific phase of transportation where the deprivation of or smash up to the commodities or the occurrence or situation resulting in a holdup came about. The final situation is that the requirements on the transporter’s responsibility, restraint of responsibility or time for lawsuit is obligatory.
Article 82
Item 82 offers that nothing in the Rotterdam regulations impinges on the relevance of the conferences reference to which is made afterward just by demonstrating the different forms of transportation as much as it is straightforward to make out which the individual meetings are.
Carriage by road
The proviso mention to which is made in item 82(b) with the expressions to the degree that such gathering agreeing to its necessities is valid to the carriage of commodities that stay loaded on a road freight medium carried on board a ship is that in item 2(1) of the CMR 9. As a result, the span of item 82 is restricted to the condition visualized in that. The most appropriate part of a probable disagreement would be that concerning the disparity of the restrictions of responsibility that under the Rotterdam regulations are 3 SDR for each kilogram and 875 SDR for each parcel or other transport entity. But the lesser standard load of the parcels carried in containers has significantly cut down the difficulty and certainly would allow a superior defense to the hauler if the bound for a parcel or other transport element is applied.
Carriage by rail
Item 82(c) offers that the requirements of a conference overriding transportation by rail shall triumph over those of the Rotterdam regulations. This is to the level that such meeting relating to its requirements is relevant to transportation of commodities by sea as a complement to the transportation by rail. The expression “complement” that is applied in COTIF-CIM communicates the thought of something that is supplementary to something besides and could not subsist autonomously. For instance, in an agreement of transportation by rail from Paris to London the load of the railroad freight medium on a liner across the Channel is a “complement to the transportation by rail” but in a house-to-house agreement from Singapore to Zurich through Genoa the transportation by ocean from Singapore to Genoa can almost not be rated as a “complement” to the transportation by rail from Genoa to Zurich. Expanse can, consequently, be an applicable attribute for the condition of the nautical prop as a complement of the railroad prop. To the degree that the bound of responsibility is concerned the remarks made for the CMR are relevant as well here, for the bound for each kilogram is similar.
Carriage by air
Taking into account the reality that item 82(a) offers commonly that the requirements of the Rotterdam regulations shall not reign over any global conference overriding transportation meeting prevailing transfer of commodities by air to the degree that such meeting in relation to its necessities is relevant to any component of the agreement of transfer, its extent is wide-ranging. The feature, though, that is more pertinent is, as well in this instance, the bound of responsibility, which in the Montreal Convention is 17 SDRs for each kilogram. Consequently in this circumstance such bound is equivalent to that for each parcel in relation to the Rotterdam regulations if the parcel has a weight of 51.47 kilograms. For that reason the bound for a parcel having weight of 50 kilograms is somewhat elevated in the Rotterdam regulations which is at 875 SDRs, as compared to the Montreal Convention where it stands at 850 SDRs. It is rather elevated under the Montreal Convention for parcels having weight above 51.7 kilograms. This is a weight that almost certainly is not very common for commodities transported by air.
Haulage by internal watercourse
The conference that may be appropriate in relation to the degree that such gathering in relation to its requirements is relevant to a wagon of commodities with no transshipment both by internal watercourse and ocean is the CMNI 10, piece 2(2) of which offers that the Convention is relevant except if a naval invoice of loading is given in agreement with the naval regulation appropriate or the expanse journeyed in waters to which marine restrictions are appropriate is better. For that reason, the likelihood of a disagreement is very insignificant, because the expanse journeyed by ocean will approximately for all time be bigger and, in any occasion a naval invoice of loading will be given, the transfer deed that the transporter has to give in accordance with the Rotterdam regulations being without doubt the correspondent of the naval invoice of loading.
Compulsions and accountabilities of naval performing entities
While it was thought whether and to what level the sub-declarers of the hauler, referred to as performing entities, should be under the Rotterdam regulations and predisposed to be prosecuted by the hauler or receiver, it was determined that it would be handy to do so only in relation to provisions offered at ocean or in the docks and consequently the idea of naval performing entity was crafted, thus fitting in the Rotterdam regulations the values on which the Himalaya phrase is founded. Item 19(5), consequently pulls out the regulation taken up in piece 10 of the Hamburg regulations to sub-declarers offering services aground but around the harbor areas and offers that a naval performing entity is under the requirements and accountabilities inflicted on the transporter and is warranted to the transporter’s ramparts and restrictions of accountability as allowed for in the Rotterdam regulations. For the regulations to be appropriate it is essential, though, that if the nautical performing entity is a subordinate hauler it has to obtain the commodities for transportation or convey them in a Contracting State.
Deliverance of the merchandise
The Rotterdam regulations hold requirements on the liberties and compulsions of the entities. The primary matters that had to be straightened out were those concerning the requirements of the transporter to convey the commodities and of the receiver to acknowledge deliverance. The duty of the hauler to convey the merchandise is subject to diverse circumstances, in relation to whether a flexible transfer deed has been given or not. In the earlier instance it is subject to the submission by the receiver of the deed or record. In the second it is subject to the receiver appropriately recognizing him. In addition, in the previous case consistent to item 46 the transporter, for the defense of the possessor of the flexible deed, has not only the liberty not to send the commodities but also the compulsion to decline deliverance devoid of the deed apart from when the transfer deed particularly affirms that the commodities may be conveyed devoid of giving in of the deed.
Transmission of liberties
In section 11, the heading of which is Transfer of rights, editorial 57 in fact controls the ways in which the possessor of a flexible transfer deed may transmit the liberties included there. Editorial 58 controls the circumstances in which the possessor of a flexible transfer deed that is not the hauler presupposes responsibilities under the agreement of carriage and affirms that he does not do so just by grounds of being the owner but he does if he exercises any liberty under the agreement if carriage. Nevertheless he presumes responsibilities only to the degree that such accountabilities are included in or discoverable from the deed.
Issues Synchronized by Warsaw-Hague and Montreal conference
The Montreal Convention is a global accord which will bring up to date regulations involving to transporters’ responsibility. It is intended to put back the complex and old-fashioned Warsaw System of transporters’ responsibility.
Sky transporter’s accountability for deprivation, smash up or holdup
Initially, in the event of smash up or holdup to cargo, the individual free to deliverance or the plaintiff has to nitpick in writing to the transporter following the detection of the smash up, and in the period of a particular amount of days from the date of acceptance in case of smash up, or from the date on which the freight should have been sent in the case of a holdup. The liability of the air carrier for delay, loss, or damage to cargo is limited to a maximum amount per kilogram, (also called monetary cap). In certain circumstances of serious misconduct, under some of the international air conventions, the carrier loses the benefit of the monetary cap limiting his liability for delay, loss, or damage to cargo”.
Accountability of “succeeding”, and “authentic” transporters
“Carriage performed by several “contracting” carriers, even if performed under multiple air waybills is treated as undivided carriage if the carrier and the consignor considered it as such. An example would be where a consignor contracts with one carrier (“contracting” carrier), for carriage from point A to point B, and from point B to point C, but it is agreed from the outset that the last stage from point B to point C is to be performed by another “successive” carrier. A “successive” carrier needs to be distinguished from an “actual” carrier, to whom a “contracting” carrier sub-contracts the performance of the carriage, or part thereof. An “actual” carrier, in contrast to a “successive” carrier, is not a party to the contract of carriage. Therefore, the question arises as to the liability of such an “actual” carrier, if damage occurs during the part of the carriage sub-contracted and performed by the “actual” carrier”.
Responsibility of “succeeding” transporters
“All of the international air conventions state that carriage needs to be performed by several successive carriers is deemed to be one undivided carriage if the parties from the outset regarded it as a single operation, whether one or more air waybills were issued. In addition, consecutive carriage does not lose its international character because one or more stages are to be performed entirely within the territory of the same State. These previsions are particularly important in deciding whether the consecutive carriage is international carriage, as defined, and thus governed by the international air conventions. The global air reunions offer that each transporter who agrees to freight is to be governed by the regulations of the pertinent intercontinental air caucus, and is considered to be one of the astringent entities to the agreement of transportation in as far as the agreement deals with that division of the transportation which is carried out under his or her direction. Consequently, the requirements of the relevant global air meeting are valid to every succeeding transporter, if the consignment comes efficiently into his control, and if he has carried out the transportation.
In terms of who may be prosecuted, the worldwide air caucuses offer that the sender has a right of action against the first succeeding hauler, who is usually identified as the first hauler in the air waybill and is frequently the one who actually contracted with the consignor. More, the receiver who is permitted to deliverance holds a right of feat against the previous succeeding transporter. All the global air caucuses offer that these transporters will be mutually and severally accountable to the sender or receiver. Put differently, if one of the aforesaid succeeding transporters is fruitfully prosecuted, he is accountable for the entirety of the deprivation or smash up, but he may be permitted to take resort in opposition to another consecutive transporter carrier.
Accountability of “authentic” transporters
The Montreal Convention 1999 offers that the edge of accountability under the international sky conventions is valid to each one of them independently and to their particular servants and instruments acting within the span of their service. What is more, the collective reparation granted against the “authentic” hauler, “constricting” transporter, or their handmaids and instruments may not surpass the utmost sum that the plaintiff would pull through by litigating either the “authentic” transporter or the “constricting” transporter.
The other stipulations of the Montreal Convention 1999, in relation to haulage carried out by the “actual” hauler are to a large extent alike to the provisions already talked about in relation to the liability of space haulers.
To finish off, the building up of conferences with time has enhanced the protection of parties in their liberties and responsibilities by the regulations of these conventions and their procedures. In the last conventions, which are Montreal air cargo and Rotterdam convention, the responsibilities of all parties are administered intently. The Montreal convention of 1999 (convention for the unification of Certain Rules for international Carriage by Air) will be more and more momentous in the future, as States assent to it. The Montreal Rules and Rotterdam do not discriminate against the liberties of all parties.
Air transport development increased demand for airport facilities and efficient needs for cargo, passengers, and aircraft services. Advancement in computer technology has allowed manufacturers to design planes which are aerodynamic, more reliable, and powerful. Demand for transportation of cargo by air has grown steadily (Barczak, 2019). Air cargo terminals, fleets, and routes have also improved since airports are expanding air cargo operations to cut costs and improve service quality (Barczak, 2019). The cargo hubs utilize aircraft which include wide-body freighters, narrow-body freighters, and feeder airplanes. My selection is on feeder aircraft, which the express carriers rely on. They include DHL (International GmbH), United Parcel Service (UPS), and Lufthansa.
Advantages of Feeder Aircraft
I have chosen the feeder aircraft for my paper because they operate globally, therefore, linking different countries and, leading to international networks. The aircraft provide links and networks among hubs based on the full-service network carriers (FSNC), which optimize air cargo connectivity (Baxter, et al., 2018). Additionally, it incorporates and adopts the strategies of supply chain management, which results in cooperation and integration between the stakeholders participating in the supply chain and the air cargo companies.
Advantages of Primary Aircraft
The choice reduces risks since firms combine resources to form alliances for accomplishing a designated objective. Strategic associations, such as the WOW Cargo, comprise such members as Japan Airlines, Singapore Airlines, Lufthansa Cargo, and SAS Cargo. These companies create a marketing advantage since consumers have a higher preference for airlines with extensive network routes (Baxter et al., 2018). Furthermore, alliances reduce costs, increase access to congested airports, and ensure the achievement of higher profits.
Disadvantages of Primary Aircraft
Similar to other aircrafts, the feeder airplanes have weaknesses which impede their operations. The feeder aircrafts groups are marketed as a commodity rather than a brand which meets marketing problems (Baxter et al., 2018). Furthermore, alliances are faced with issues which affect air cargo markets. These challenges include the concentration of demand, inadequate coordination arrangements within firms, uniformity in the appearance of the products, and air cargo product heterogeneity. Other prevalent problems include time sensitivity issues of air cargo, varying cultural practices, technological differences among members, and inadequate economies of scale.
Aircraft’s Operational Concern
Minimal attention has been paid to investigating the cause of accidents involving freighter aircrafts’ accidents. The approximate transported goods by major airline firms such as FedEx, DHL, and UPS in 2016 was 52 million tons (Kilic & Gundogdu, 2020). Cargo planes are subtle to risks when carrying hazardous and explosive materials (Baxter & Srisaeng, 2018). They also face challenges such as sabotage and hijacks, and other forms of crimes related to cargo, which contribute to accidents (Kilic & Gundogdu, 2020). Cargo aircraft accidents in 2019 were estimated to be at 30%, and they have not subsided to date (Kilic & Gundogdu, 2020). Accidents result in loss of staff and property worth millions.
Remedy to Operational Concerns
There are numerous cases of aircraft accidents in the contemporary industry. Human error accounts for 70-80% of airline aviation accidents (Kilic & Gundogdu, 2020). Future accidents will be prevented by identifying and analyzing frameworks of human errors using strategies such as management oversight and risk model (Kilic & Gundogdu, 2020). Erroneous filing of exportation documents results in wrong deliveries of cargo (Santisiri & Aksornkitti, 2019).
Therefore, to address the challenge, it is important to adopt proper oversight plans of cargo aircrafts operations coupled with strategic, competent supervisory steps. The selected aircraft fails to possess any maintenance concerns which disrupt the flow operations (Santisiri & Aksornkitti, 2019). It is important to address the challenges that result to accidents to improve the efficiency of the aircrafts.
Conclusion
Air transport increased demand for airport facilities and efficient needs for cargo, passengers, and aircraft services. My selection is on feeder aircraft, which is relied on by express carriers. Feeder aircraft operates internationally, leading to the creation of global networks. Human errors result in accidents, and wrongly filled exportation documents in air cargo operations lead to wrong deliveries. Elimination of human error prevents the occurrence of accidents which sabotage and disrupt operations of the airlines.
Baxter, G., & Srisaeng, P. (2018). Cooperating to compete in the global air cargo industry: The case of the DHL express and Lufthansa cargo A.G Joint venture airline ‘Aerologic’. Infrastructures, 3(1), 7. Web.
Kilic, B., & Gundogdu, S. (2020). Human factors in air cargo operations: An analysis using HFACS. Journal of Aviation Research, 2(2), 101-114.
Santisiri, W., & Aksornkitti, B. (2019). The Error Prevention in Filling Exported Documents in Air Cargo Operation. RSU International Research Conference, Thailand. Web.
The main idea of the air cargo planning process and strategies is to ensure there is the generation of optimal flight schedules. The market potential of any airline depends on its flight schedules. All the business units that occur under the control of the flight schedules are considered time-consuming and challenging. This complexity has attracted the need to deprogram the planning processes and approaches into various steps to be executed sequentially (Beifert, 2016).
Thus, the air cargo sphere can be viewed as a service industry with the ability to provide transportation facilitation to the shoppers for their materials, goods, and products. According to the National Academies of sciences, engineering, and medicine (2015), air cargo effectively handles parcels and packages, which unlike passenger transportation, takes care of customers making trips on the plane. The shipments in this type of service are a one-way process, which succeeds by liaising with trucks. The industry is characterized to be fast, labor-intensive, and is supposed to function on 24 hours and seven days a week schedule (Baxter & Srisaeng, 2018). The federal government manages the planning approaches and processes of this industry, making its functioning complex.
Air Cargo Planning Approaches
Air cargo focuses on the aspects entailing developing new cargo facilities and other issues, such as expanding or doing renovations and improving and developing infrastructure. The airport community uses these as guidelines to conduct a study of the current conditions peculiar to the sphere and create the framework for continuous improvement (Lim, 2018). As an element of the air cargo’s development, air cargo planning is considered one of the approaches to manage planning for a wide variety of actors supporting this agency.
For instance, the process ensures that automobile parking, the passenger terminals, runways, road access, and general layouts are put in place considerably. Another plan, which includes proper focusing on the air cargo activities and areas, depends on airport sponsoring and supporting activities needed to support the high effectiveness of the sphere.
The main structure of air cargo development and planning should adhere to the available airport master plan. This process is essential to ensure that the design and scheme of an airport and other projects are well put in place and executed (Brandt & Nickel, 2018). The processes of planning for air cargo are usually standardized; however, it is critical to consider the discrete needs of a specific airport to attain the desired efficiency (Brandt & Nickel, 2018). It is also vital to understand that this plan is a must for an airport as it helps to avoid failures and accidents in the future.
Data Collection and Facility Inventory
The airport planners need proper and accurate data to ensure the facility is organized to meet the users’ demands. However, the acquisition of relevant and up-to-date data can be complex because of the nature of the sphere. Thus, the passenger terminals will always have better data considering their control and command occurring in the context of throughput information (Larrode, Muerza, & Villagrasa, 2018).
Employing ticketing systems, curbsides, gates, and security systems, the passenger ports usually have a better knowledge of the current situation than the cargo sector (Larrode et al., 2018). For air cargo, however, the master planner strives to get information because there is no up-to-date data movement, which would occur through cargo buildings and various support infrastructures. There should be a proper understanding of the practices and methods of cargo carriers if data on the functionality of this section is to be noted.
The airport planners, therefore, will invest more in understanding the general movement of cargo, which occurs through airside and landside infrastructure as the leading factor promoting better data availability. Notably, the third party and the carrier handlers are the ones who have better knowledge in terms of grasping the main activities. The third-party might strive to have access to the facility plans and strategies which operate internally (Larrode et al., 2018). Carriers have multiple options to ensure the cargo moves through the pallets and forklifts or even opt considering the slide-sortation system (Chen, 2016).
At international gateways, large cargo may find its way through such terminals utilizing rollers for ease of movement. The above-mentioned strategy occurs under the influence of corporate organizations and the cooperation of engineers. It is vital to mention data collection becomes necessary for air cargo, meaning that third-party handlers, carriers, and other actors are responsible for offering relevant and accurate information.
Therefore, air cargo master planning requires an individual who understands what to prioritize and how to manage the situation. Planning should come last on the procedures considered in terms of priority in any airport’s planning process (Larrode et al., 2018). Ideologically, data collection requires funds, and in most cases, proper information search is done to meet the demands of the passenger terminals. This fact explains the top priority of passenger terminals which play a critical role in the functioning of the sphere. For this reason, the correct choice of data collection methods is vital for the functioning of all stakeholders.
Air cargo planners need to ensure that during the development process, cost-effective strategies are prioritized for the sake of improving the facility’s operational methods. Defining the current situation at the port is vital for understanding how implementation needs to be done (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2015). This stage is fundamental as it allows for the proper completion of an inventory. Therefore, facilities that take care of meaningful sectors such as truck circulation and associated ramp space, the percentage of available capacity, and the facility uses can be created properly by first d the process.
The survey is one of the data collection methods used in air cargo creation as it helps to get the demanded information (Baxter & Srisaeng, 2018). There are various methods that can be employed to ensure proper execution of the survey, including face-to-face interviews, paper, and online surveys, among others. However, it is necessary to select the approach regarding the financial capacity of a unit and its funding. The advantage of getting the relevant data is that it offers insight into whether the current air cargo facility can accommodate any increase. This consideration helps the facility to understand whether the activity being undertaken under inventory is a long or short-term project and whether it is convenient.
The Focus
When it comes to doing inventory, the planners need to consider what they need to view as their main priority for their jobs. One of the prior tasks should be to manage the facilities and land required by integrating carriers, airlines, and the handlers of the cargos for both the air and the ground support. Companies with large fleets need enough space to handle their works, and vice versa (Baxter & Srisaeng, 2018).
The operational technique is one of the issues that demand larger facility spaces. For instance, if the integrated carriers might decide to maintain the delivery trucks inside the airport, a bigger area might be required. This larger space would help put proper magnitude in their truck fleets (Chen, 2016). The facilities located outside the airport and the related economies are other issues that need to be considered during the inventory process. Buying land for the construction of the air cargo is advisable instead of leasing land for various purposes.
Data Collection Challenges
There are various challenges that airport master planners might face, especially when it comes to collecting data. Air cargo planning occurs under the consideration of two main issues, which include spatial needs and space. For example, spatial requirements are essential for the storage and movement of air cargo vehicles. Space involves a place where companies can store various objects vital for their functioning (Lim, 2018).
Storage places are necessary considering that the processes peculiar to the sphere might take few minutes or several days. For a functioning air cargo to occur, proper data must be collected and employed. As it has already been stated, surveys can help to increase the accuracy of the information, but its collection remains a continuous process. Organizations such as air forwarders and carriers are important in delivering accurate data, ensuring the inventory process is properly set. This fact explains the critical need for proper research and information management, as it helps to prioritize tasks and avoid failures. However, the existence of multiple sources which can be used to extract the relevant data, choosing the best method can be a challenge.
Data can be incomplete and cause difficulties in assessing the right mechanisms needed to create a proper air cargo port. For instance, cargo volume, also known as airport traffic, data occurs under the influence of the management. The data is extracted at the times of the port’s planning divisions, operation divisions, business, and service development divisions (Mosbah & Ryerson, 2016). Some types of this information are mail and freight air cargo weight measured in pounds or tons. The difference in scales and approaches preconditions the increase in the complexity of data collection usually performed by one or two specialists responsible for this activity.
As per specific operational procedures of every port, some will opt for providing and tracking air cargo weight statistics as monitored in a carrier market. The data is necessary because it demonstrates the peculiarities of carriers’ work, capabilities, and recent activities. Thus, the control towers will always have operational statistics fundamental for their stable functioning. The departure and arrival times are also recorded by the official airlines.
However, there is a challenge presupposing that in some cases, this information can be inaccurate and contribute to the emergence of misunderstandings. Moreover, the airport management might suffer from the absence of relevant data at the demanded time, reducing its effectiveness and outcomes. Through the survey, knowledge about trucks can easily be obtained, however, the information is considered proprietary. Therefore, it is a call to all the planners and office management to ensure they have the correct approach to data retrieval. Lastly, some data might not work fittingly towards all the airport facilities, meaning that the right method should be employed for the right location.
How to Backlit Missing Space Data
Regularly, there is a need to use online sources, including Bing Maps, Google Earth, and other government records, to get the information that might be missing. Therefore, there is a need to ensure proper methods are employed to uplift the needed information (Lenin, 2016). By means of Google Earth, it becomes easier to understand the area needed in square footage, meters, yards, and any other units required. That means Google can guarantee the viewing of sides of the building is noted (Lenin, 2016). They can gather more information through Airport layout plans; however, aerial photographs are vital in determining the types of ground handling equipment.
Larger amounts of reliable data can be collected through ground support equipment. In many places, the ground support equipment (GSE) is designed to be adjacent to the air cargo warehouses. They are created in such a manner that the storage follows the security fencing, and during the event, mixed equipment is used. There are multiple objects stored in this area, and therefore can be used to supply needed information in this regard. Through tug lane division, the GSE area offers joints through which proper storage mechanisms can be stored, therefore its acts as a back lifting space.
Things to Be Considered
When inventing an air cargo facility, various issues should be considered. The first is the aircraft parking ramp needed for aircraft and central operations. This place is always noted through the Google Earth Pro technique, and therefore, the master planners can utilize this system to find the best possible solution. The facility should also have an air cargo warehouse, with space as the leading determinant (Ferrulli, 2016). In this regard, a cargo building should be easily accessible to improve the effectiveness of major processes. Issues such as office spaces are not always required when it comes to making a warehouse. Alternatively, specific rooms for specialists and workers should be organized outside the warehouse area. This is done to ensure better navigation of products in and outside the warehouse.
The throughput of a warehouse is significant in determining the capacity of an air cargo facility. It is vital for the air cargo planners to visit Bing Map Birds to ensure they understand the rightful number of warehouse truck docks and the related doors. It is therefore essential to guarantee that truck parking capacity is always accounted for when setting up the facility. Another issue that should be considered is the stalls, which are adjacent to the cargo building. To ascertain the rightful number of these tools, the application of Bing Maps and Google Earth Pro is advisable.
The Planning Process
Every project has a planning process if success needs to be a guarantee. The facilitation of air cargo facility should occur in a systematic approach, and, therefore, the first step should be the identification of the needs. Objects of infrastructure are created to serve multiple purposes, and it is vital to identify the modification needs of either new or already existing air cargo facilities. The next step is considering the inventory used to offer the basis for realizing the operation and capacity of the unit. This also deals with the functional and physical characteristics as well as any available or purported constraints.
The third step would be to process demand forecasts and future requirements. It can be achieved through involving planners, stakeholders, and management to get their vision. The demand of the facility then occurs as the fourth stage, this helps in establishing the anticipated aircraft fleet and the support equipment which are supposed to be used.
The next step is the alternative development, which looks into meeting other requirements of already determined air cargo facility. Issues such as the impact on proximate units, the generation operation, and other planning guidelines and criteria should be observed (Ferrulli, 2016). Evaluation of all options is another step that processes all visions if more than one solution has been previously used. This process is important because it helps reduce alternatives to one, which is specific and essential for the facility (Brandt & Nickel, 2019). The availability of a set of criteria, which should be agreed upon by all the stakeholders, will make this process to be a success.
After the preferred alternative has been noted, there is a need to refine it to resolve any existing shortcomings. Upon realizing which mode is selected, the next step should be the implementation of the planning process, which gives the enhancement of the definition and understanding of the entire conceptualized project. Asch, Dewulf, and Kupfer (2019) reveal the processing of the environment is also part of this inventory process.
There is a need to coordinate with the airport operator for the air cargo facility and development to be successful. The last step is to ensure that facility construction begins, and the success of this project depends on the selection of contractors in accordance with the air cargo design. This will help ensure the construction meets both the current and the future demands of the facility, plus the NEPA and FAA building standards.
Conclusion
Altogether, it is fundamental to realize that the airport becomes fully functional with the support of the air cargo facilities. These facilities are built considering specific service delivery mechanisms, which presupposes both long-term and short-term goals. Expanding or doing renovations, improving and developing facilities are some of the main processes of air cargo facility and development. The process is supposed to adhere to proper building systems, including taking care of the needs, the inventory process, managing the demand forecasts, and meeting the air cargo facilities.
Further, issues related to checking the alternatives and refining the preferred options are vital to ensure implementation of the design process is as per the already structured facility. After this has happened, it is essential to manage the environmental processing to the summit to the National environmental policy act (NEPA), the approval of the airport layout plan (ALP), and federal grant funding, among other things. In such a way, modern aviation can be viewed as a complex sphere with multiple tasks that should be performed to ensure that the existing goals are achieved. Planning cargo operations, it is possible to create the basis for future improvement and stable functioning that satisfies clients’ demands. Using the correct and proven models, relevant data, and effective cooperation strategies, carriers, and airlines can create the model promoting the further success and achievement of improved goals.
References
Asch, T.V., Dewulf, W., & Kupfer, F. (2019). Air cargo and airport competitiveness. Journal of Air Transport Studies, 10(2). 48-75.
Brandt, F., & Nickel, S. (2019). The air cargo load planning problem – A consolidated problem definition and literature review on related problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 275(2), 299-410. Web.
Lenin, K. (2016). A study on the air cargo logistics operations in Dubai. Global Journal for research analysis, 4(5). 2277-8160.
Lim, J. (2018). Dizistics puts face on benefit – stay ahead of air cargo business model. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 9(4). 158. Web.
Larrode, E., Muerza, V. & Villagrasa, V. (2018). Analysis model to quantify potential factors in the growth of air cargo logistics in airports. Transportation Research Procedia 33(1) 339–346.
Mosbah, S., & Ryerson, M. S. (2016). Can US metropolitan areas use large commercial airports as tools to bolster regional economic growth? Journal of Planning Literature, 31(3). 317–333. Web.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2015). Guidebook for Air Cargo facility planning and development. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
In the video, an actual six-level Hong Kong Air Cargo terminal is described. This technologically advanced building meets the needs of clients and management departments. Due to its $1 billion logistics facilities and computer-driven automation, the terminal works great and brings a number of benefits, including security, speed, and flexibility. Handling equipment, advanced automation, and IT development promote the development of customer-focused services. For example, no physical (human) intervention is possible through the implementation of the pack tools box storage system (BSS). There are about 3,500 storage positions at the highest level, and cargos are administrated with the frames of computer-generated plans.
One of the main elements of high-tech methods to sort, track, and control shipments at Hong Kong Air Cargo is the absence of direct human activities and total automation endorsement. According to Elias (2018), enhanced targeting depends on how well automated systems are implemented to measure potential threats to security. Unit and pallet handling must also be improved to reduce the participation of people (go to the container directly from the tarmac). The “sushi-bar” style for conveyors allow holding about 10,000 storage positions for clients’ consignments.
Japanese air freight industry continues developing and setting high standards in the sphere of management. Today, the country’s terminals are directed to support the population’s growth and establish positive trends in marketing and managing (Bhattacharya, 2018). If I were a manager in the air cargo industry, I would use the Hong Kong system as one of the best examples to be followed. First, it is necessary to use computer-controlled conveyors to reduce the human impact on shipment activities. Second, the implementation of mapping systems cannot be ignored because they enhance security and flexibility. Finally, the idea of pack tool BSS is a good chance to support total security in the cargo system.
References
Bhattacharya, S. (2018). Japan holding on to positive growth. The Stat Trade Times. Web.
Elias, B. (2018). Security of air cargo shipments, operations, and facilities. Congressional Research Service. Web.